Peck v. Serio
2003 Ohio 6561, 155 Ohio App. 3d 471, 801 N.E.2d 890 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of alternative liability, which shifts the burden of proof for causation to the defendants, applies only after the plaintiff has first met their burden of proving that all defendants acted tortiously (negligently). The doctrine cannot be used to shift the plaintiff's initial burden of proving negligence.
Facts:
- Christina M. Peck was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her mother, Betty L. Serio.
- Serio was driving south and attempting to make a left turn at an intersection.
- Willetha N. Carmichael was driving north and proceeding straight through the same intersection.
- The vehicles driven by Serio and Carmichael collided in the intersection, causing personal injuries to Peck.
- Serio claimed she had the right of way because she was turning on a green left-turn arrow.
- Carmichael claimed she had the right of way because she was proceeding on a solid green light.
- Peck testified that she did not see the color of the traffic light and could not recall which driver had the right-of-way.
Procedural Posture:
- Christina M. Peck filed a negligence action against Betty L. Serio and Willetha N. Carmichael in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court).
- At the close of evidence, Peck moved for a directed verdict, arguing for the application of alternative liability, but the magistrate denied the motion.
- Peck's request for a jury instruction on the theory of alternative liability was also denied.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of both defendants, Serio and Carmichael.
- Peck filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the magistrate denied and the trial court adopted.
- Peck, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of alternative liability apply to shift the burden of proof to two defendant drivers when an innocent passenger is injured in a collision, but the plaintiff has not proven that both defendants breached a duty of care?
Opinions:
Majority - Sadler, Judge
No. The doctrine of alternative liability does not apply because it only shifts the burden of proving causation after a plaintiff first establishes that all defendants acted negligently. The court reasoned that alternative liability, as established in cases like Summers v. Tice and adopted in Ohio in Minnich v. Ashland Oil Co., is a narrow exception for situations where two or more actors are proven to be wrongdoers, but it is uncertain which one's wrongful act caused the injury. The doctrine's purpose is to prevent proven tortfeasors from escaping liability. It does not relieve a plaintiff of the initial burden of proving that each defendant breached a duty of care. In this case, Peck only established that one of the two drivers must have been negligent, but failed to prove that both were. Therefore, because the threshold requirement of proving tortious conduct by all defendants was not met, the burden of proof never shifted, and the jury's verdict for the defendants was appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional and strict application of the alternative liability doctrine in Ohio. It clarifies that the doctrine is a tool for resolving uncertainty in causation among proven tortfeasors, not a tool for resolving uncertainty about which party was negligent in the first place. The ruling prevents the expansion of the doctrine into a general burden-shifting mechanism that would excuse plaintiffs from their fundamental obligation to prove the elements of negligence. This maintains a clear line: plaintiffs must first prove all defendants acted wrongfully before the burden of proving causation can shift.
Unlock the full brief for Peck v. Serio