A recent appellate court decision has reversed a jury verdict that awarded damages to a man injured during a physical therapy session, raising questions about legal standards for premises liability and the use of circumstantial evidence in negligence claims. The ruling affects both patients seeking recourse for injuries and businesses responsible for maintaining safe environments.
The complaint was filed by Jon H. Wagner and Lynda Wagner in Licking County Court of Common Pleas on October 7, 2022, against Athletico, Ltd., following an incident at Athletico’s Newark, Ohio location. According to court documents, Jon Wagner suffered injuries on November 20, 2020, when a wooden board with attached resistance bands broke away from the wall during his therapy session and struck him in the forehead.
The Wagners alleged that Athletico was negligent due to an unsafe condition on its premises. They sought damages totaling $110,000—$100,000 for Jon Wagner’s injuries and $10,000 for Lynda Wagner’s loss of consortium. The dispute centered on whether Athletico had knowledge or notice of any hazardous condition related to the equipment involved in the incident.
Athletico argued it owed no duty because it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of any defect with the board or resistance bands. Testimony at trial established that Athletico had moved its operations from Granville to Newark in 2019 and brought existing equipment—including the board—to its new facility. Installation was performed by an outside contractor rather than Athletico staff.
Clinic manager S.M. testified that annual safety assessments were conducted at all facilities and included checks on wall fixtures like the board in question. S.M. also stated he personally assessed the security of such fixtures daily while present at the clinic. Physical therapy assistant J.R., who worked with Jon Wagner on the day of his injury, testified he had demonstrated exercises using the board between 100 and 200 times over one year without observing defects or issues.
Jon Wagner himself testified that staff always demonstrated exercises before patient use and confirmed there were no signs of instability or hazards prior to his accident. He completed two sets of exercises without issue before being struck by the detached board during his third set.
Following their case presentation, Athletico moved for a directed verdict twice—first after plaintiffs rested their case and again after presenting its own defense—arguing insufficient evidence existed showing it knew or should have known about any defect. Both motions were denied by the trial court based on application of res ipsa loquitur, which allows juries to infer negligence from circumstantial evidence under certain conditions.
The jury ultimately found in favor of Jon and Lynda Wagner, awarding them $110,000 in total damages. Athletico appealed this outcome on several grounds: failure to grant summary judgment; denial of motions for directed verdict; improper jury instructions; and claims that the verdict was contrary to law.
In its March 16, 2026 opinion authored by Judge Baldwin with Judges Gormley and Montgomery concurring, the Fifth District Court of Appeals focused primarily on whether res ipsa loquitur applied given facts presented at trial. The court cited Ohio precedent requiring plaintiffs in premises liability cases to show either direct responsibility for a hazard by defendants or actual/constructive notice thereof—a standard not met here since installation was handled by an outside contractor unknown to Athletico’s staff.
The appellate panel wrote: “There was no evidence establishing that [Athletico] had notice… regarding the potentially hazardous condition,” finding instead that reliance on res ipsa loquitur was misplaced because another party—the outside installer—could have caused the injury independently from any action or omission by Athletico.
As stated in their conclusion: “Without application of res ipsa [loquitur], appellees cannot overcome… their negligence claim against appellant.” The appeals court sustained Athletico’s second assignment of error (denial of directed verdict), reversed judgment against it, and remanded for entry consistent with this opinion—effectively ending plaintiffs’ claims unless further appealed.
Attorneys listed include C. Joseph McCoy representing Jon H. and Lynda Wagner; Jennifer L. Wilson and Joseph G. Bogdewiecz representing Athletico Ltd.; Judges David M. Gormley, Craig R. Baldwin, Robert G. Montgomery presided over appeal; Case ID is 2025 CA 00054.
Source: 2026Ohio888_Wagner_v_Athletico_LTD_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
