LaMusga v. Summit Square Rehab, L.L.C.

Citations

• 2017 Ohio 6907
• 94 N.E.3d 1137

Syllabus

Plaintiff-appellant appeals from the trial court's decision granting Defendants-appellees summary judgment. The trial court correctly determined that security guard training provided by a sole proprietorship owned by Defendants-appellees to security guards involved in the death of Plaintiff-appellant's decedent did not create a special relationship between Defendants-appellees and the security guards. Therefore, Defendants-appellees, acting through the sole proprietorship, had no duty to control the security guards' actions. Further, the record, assuming a special relationship, does not create a factual issue that the sole proprietorship provided negligent training to the security guards. The trial court also correctly concluded there was not a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the limited liability company (LLC) owned by Defendants-appellees and which employed the security guards was, in fact, a sole proprietorship owned by Defendants-appellees. The trial court also correctly concluded there was not a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the LLC's corporate veil should be pierced. It is, finally, concluded that the Rule 56 record does not create a genuine issue of fact concerning Ivan Burke's personal liability for his corporate supervision of the security guards. Judgment affirmed.