Failure to Line Up Causation Proof:CapOne v. Branch

Proving the proximate and legal cause of your damages may be more tricky than you think.
Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

Failure to Line Up Causation Proof:CapOne v. Branch

Postby Administrator » Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:52 pm

Capital One Bank v. Branch
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 3008928
Ohio App. 10 Dist.,2005.

{¶ 12} Appellee is correct that appellant failed to present any properly authenticated evidence for consideration by the trial court to satisfy its reciprocal burden on either of the two above issues. However, even if appellant were to satisfy her reciprocal burden and could demonstrate that her causes of action fit within the parameters of the FCRA, appellant has failed to demonstrate appellee's actions proximately caused her damage. Initially, we note that, as with the other disputed issues, none of the evidence presented by appellant on the issue of proximate cause has been properly authenticated. Appellant had a reciprocal burden to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the non-moving party fails to respond with properly authenticated evidence, summary judgment must be entered against the non-moving party. Vahila v. Hall (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 421. Under Civ.R. 56(C), only depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence in the pending case, and written stipulations of fact are permitted to support a motion for summary judgment. When evidence does not fall within these categories, and no affidavits or authenticating testimony are attached, the evidence may not support the motion for summary judgment. State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 94. Likewise, documents not properly authenticated may not be considered by the court. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Hollanshead (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 17. Because, in the present case, appellant failed to submit any properly authenticated evidence to demonstrate that appellee's allegedly improper actions proximately caused her damage, the trial court was required to enter judgment against appellant.
*4 {¶ 13} Notwithstanding, even if we were to consider appellant's improperly authenticated evidence, we find appellant still failed to demonstrate appellee's actions proximately caused damage to her. Appellant attached a copy of a loan for an automobile, claiming that the interest rate she had to pay for that loan was higher than the original loan for which she was rejected. However, appellant fails to present any evidence of the prior loan for which she claims she was rejected. More importantly, she cannot demonstrate that she was rejected for the lower interest rate because of appellee's actions. For these reasons, we find appellant has failed to sustain her burden under Civ.R. 56(C), and, thus, there remain no genuine issues of material fact. Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted, and appellant's third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 14} Accordingly, appellant's first and third assignments of error are overruled, and appellant's second and fourth assignments of error are moot. The judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Return to “Causation to Damage [Proving Your Damages Are Related to and Caused by the Defendants”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest