COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67906 : ACCELERATED DOCKET CLARA BELL : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : and -vs- : : OPINION GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL : TRANSIT AUTHORITY : : Defendant-Appellee : PER CURIAM : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : APRIL 6, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CV-260664 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : __________________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: DENNIS M. SEAMAN Dennis Seaman & Assoc., L.P.A. 1600 Rockefeller Building 614 Superior Avenue, N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellee: JUAN ADORNO Greater Cleveland RTA 615 Superior Avenue, N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - PER CURIAM: This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App. R. 11.1 and Loc. R. 25, the records from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. Appellant Clara Bell sued the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority ("GCRTA") for injuries received when she slipped on an accumulation of snow and slush and fell while disembarking the No. 26 bus at or near the intersection of West 25 Street and Detroit Avenue. She claimed that the driver of the bus permitted the accumulation, that GCRTA has an affirmative duty to remove all such unnatural accumulation, and that the driver allowed a young girl to board as appellant was attempting to exit. When appellant stepped to the side, she slipped (Bell depo. at 33). The trial judge found the bus driver, Rafael Martinez, testified in his deposition that waiting passengers were told not to board the bus until all exiting passengers had departed, and his testimony is not disputed. The trial judge granted defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Clara Bell has appealed to our court alleging one assignment of error. - 3 - I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT EXISTS AS TO WHETHER DEFENDANT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS DUTY AS A COMMON CARRIER TO KEEP CLEAR THE STEPS OF THE BUS FROM THE BUILD-UP OF SNOW AND SLUSH AND FAILED TO PREVENT PASSENGERS FROM ENTERING THE BUS BEFORE DEPARTING PASSENGERS HAD SAFELY ALIGHTED. Appellant asserts that the factual issue in dispute is whether defendant GCRTA failed in its duty as a common carrier to exercise the highest degree of care practicable for her safety. Defendant asserts that no factual issues exist and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We begin our discussion by examining the duty owed by a common carrier to a passenger. In Dietrich v. Community Traction Co. (1969), 1 Ohio St.2d 38, at 41, the Ohio Supreme Court stated: It is generally recognized that the duty of a common carrier of passengers is to exercise the highest degree of care for the safety of its passengers consistent with the practical operations of the system. *** (Citations omitted.) In Rahman v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (June 2, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 66166, unreported, we observed: While it is true that the railway company owes a duty of the highest degree of care to its passengers, it cannot be regarded as an insurer of the - 4 - safety of passengers. In judging whether or not the railway company exercised the highest degree of care toward this plaintiff, reference must be had to the surrounding circumstances. Cleveland Railway v. Featherstone (1930), 8 Ohio L.Abs. 498, 499; see also, Wade v. Regional Transit Authority (Nov. 9, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 61241, unreported. Our review of the record in this case reveals that no issues of fact concerning the surrounding circumstances are disputed; rather, the parties disagree as to whether the defendant in this case met its duty to the passengers, and we must determine if defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The experienced trial judge carefully considered the plaintiff's allegations and thoughtfully reviewed applicable law. Since the record before us does not reveal any genuine issues of material fact, we adhere to our previous ruling in Rahman, supra, and find that the trial judge correctly determined defendant entitled to judgment as matter of law. Appellant's assignment of error is therefore overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - This cause is affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES D. SWEENEY, PRES. JUDGE PATRICIA BLACKMON, JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL, JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the Court and time period for review will begin to run. .