Quantcast
Wed Aug 20 2008 3:20 PM
Email:   Password:     |  Register/Subscribe
Search Site:
Advanced
Search
  Archive

FREE Sample
PDF Edition
The Record Courier
Newspaper Subscriptions

USA Weekend

Home | Back

Rootstown death case goes to high court Will hear appeal of lawsuit for 2004 asphyxiation at Giant Eagle

Email To A Friend
Printer Friendly
Comments
Add to Reddit Add to Digg Add to del.icio.us

8708niskanenmugshot-thumb


By Marci Piltz

Record-Courier staff writer

The Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision Wednesday stating it will hear an appeal of a lawsuit filed by the family of an Akron man who died while being restrained after shoplifting at the Rootstown Giant Eagle.

A Portage County jury in July 2006 awarded a $1 million verdict to the family of Paul Niskanen, 31, but also noted that since they felt he was 60 percent negligent in the incident the family would receive no money from the grocery chain.

The family appealed the decision, and earlier this year the 9th District Court of Appeals tossed out the jury's verdict. Attorneys for Giant Eagle appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio in May, and Wednesday agreed to hear the case for review. Arguments by attorneys are expected to take place later this year with a decision possible in early 2009.

During the July 2006 trial, a jury voted 6-2 that Niskanen should not have died for stealing $289 in groceries. However, they also said he contributed to his death when he struggled with Giant Eagle employees who tried to stop him.

Niskanen died in January 2004 after he left the store with a cart full of groceries. Some employees and bystanders attempted to restrain him for police, but Niskanen fought back and eventually was restrained on the ground.

Portage County Coroner Roger Marcial said Niskanen died of asphyxiation due to compression of the neck and chest. A Portage County grand jury did not indict the employees and bystanders found to have been involved in the incident.

The jury awarded Niskanen's family $500,000 in damages for pain he suffered before his death and $500,000 for the loss of his life. However, under Ohio law, if you are found to be more than 50 percent negligent in an incident, then the plaintiff in the case receives nothing.

The original wrongful death suit was filed in August 2004 by Niskanen's mother, Mary Niskanen, and named the defendants as Giant Eagle Inc. of Pittsburgh, the manager of the Rootstown store, two employees of the store and at least one other participant.

The suit alleged store employees and unidentified citizens killed Niskanen by using "deadly and unreasonable force" by putting Niskanen in an "illegal chokehold over a lengthy period of time until Niskanen was fatally asphyxiated."

Defense attorneys argued Niskanen initiated the struggle by punching a store employee while attempting to flee the store.




Comments
Read our Terms of Service Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed. Recordpub.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.

Login above or Register to comment.
   Next 10 Comments of 56 Total Comments
56.
    Posted by Ohio Gal 1 hours ago
Well is slugging someone during the commission of his crime (theft) a valid reason that employees or bystanders could hold him til police came??
The guy was wrong to be stealing. If people learn that you can fill a cart up, walk out the store and nobody can stop you than everyone dig deeper into your pockets because groceries are going to get more expensive!!!
The guy took a gamble and lost! I still ponder what a single guy is doing stealing 280 bucks worth of groceries for.
I recall from reading the appeal that they said his actions (punching someone) led to the reaction (him being suffocated) so that he himself had a large contribution to his own demise!!!
He's also been arrested prior for domestic violence, (Summit County) someone said it was against his mother but I don't know that for sure.

55.
    Posted by Harmony 5 hours ago
Why can't people take responsibility for there own actions? Why is it always someone elses fault? This wouldn't be an issue if the guy hadn't stolen or fought back.

54.
    Posted by tellnitlikeitis 16 hours ago
Also the employees stated they did not know they were violating Giant Eagles policy by pursuing and apprehending the suspect outside of the store. Also I would like to clarify that I am neither for or against Niskanen's family collecting the 1 mill that was awarded to them. Im just tired of all the uneducated opinions about the case and felt we could use some facts on here. Personally I think the guy was a dirtball but my opinion doesn't matter.

53.
    Posted by tellnitlikeitis 16 hours ago
And in light of these facts I guess that's why a jury found Giant Eagle to be negligent and caused Niskanen's death. Also as I'm sure most of you are not aware, according to the police report 3 people(two employees & one passerby) where on top of Niskanen for ten minutes holding him down, with one employee sitting on the neck region of Niskanen. Several witnesses say that for the last five minutes there where no sounds or movements from Niskanen at which point one of the restrainers as well as several passerby's asked if he was ok or if he was even breathing. Employees verified that he was not moving or struggling but still chose not to verify if he was still breathing. Once the RO arrived he ordered all the men off of Niskanen. By this time Niskanen had succumbed to death. Later to be determined by the autopsy as asphyxiation.

52.
    Posted by tellnitlikeitis 17 hours ago
So as you can now see even if by case law they are allowed to pursue into the immediate vicinity of the establishment they where still wrong. A couple of key phrases being "reasonable manner" and "must not use undue restraint"(that means force) So I hope this has cleared some things up for you Gucci.

51.
    Posted by tellnitlikeitis 17 hours ago
Okay let's start with that....citizens are allowed to make "arrest" absolutely, but only in cases of felonies. Shoplifting(the amount he did)is a misdemeanor. So there goes their right to "arrest" him. So if no arrest, no resisting. Incidentally the section you are referring to ORC2921.33 does stipulate the resist has to be against a "law enforcement officer" which unfortunately cashiers do not qualify as. Secondly I would like to discuss Detention of shoplifters.2935.041 Detention and arrest of shoplifters - detention of persons in library, museum, or archival institution.

(A) A merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment.
(E) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, the merchant or employee or agent of a merchant, or the owner, lessee, employee, or agent of the facility acting under division (A) , (B), or (D) of this section shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person's consent, OR USE UNDUE RESTRAINT UPON THE PERSON BEING DETAINED.

50.
    Posted by gucci 20 hours ago
I think you should check your case law on employees not being allowed to apprehend shoplifters "outside the store". Fact is they can on the "property".

I was able to find at least ten precident setting cases in Ohio on that in about 1/2 hour.

Incidentally it is illegal to resist arrest in the state of Ohio, even if it is later found to be an illegal arrest.

49.
    Posted by tellnitlikeitis August 18, 2008
Okay, the point is store employees ARE NOT ALLOWED to touch anybody once they are outside of the store. Was he wrong for stealing? Yes. Were the employees wrong for pursuing him? Yes. Wrong for engaging in combat with a shoplifter? Yes. They could have been charged criminally and don't think that it wasn't discussed. Those are just the facts. No opinions there, and that is actually what the case is about, not whether he was a scumbag or had deadbeat parents, it's about what was legal and illegal. And as your parents always told you "two wrongs don't make a right". So unfortunately the case will be decided on a legal basis and not whether or not he was in fact white trash.

48.
    Posted by gucci August 18, 2008
Unknown,

WOW!!

Now who is ticked off?? I am not mad about anything. You have no right to comment any more than I do. That's all I am saying.

Now you are telling me to shut up in a way...Because my opinion does not agree with yours.

These are your words, not mine..

""But you need to learn to back off when people express there opinion and quit getting ticked off!!!"""

Now that is ticked off. Save your hypocricy for someone else..

47.
    Posted by Unknown August 17, 2008
No one is telling you to shut up gucci. But you need to learn to back off when people express there opinion and quit getting ticked off!!!

   Next 10 Comments

Terms of Service Copyright Record Publishing Co, LLC. 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.
Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher.
Dix Communications