Good Case Out of Ohio Supreme Court

(c) 2010 F. Bruce Abel

This case I will read. Sounds good for one of my cases.


SCO Home » PIO » Summaries » 2010 » 0128 » Supreme Court of Ohio Case Summaries
Sign up to Receive E-mail Updates Subscribe to This Feed Upcoming Cases
Select an archive 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
‘Public Duty Rule’ Does Not Apply When Suit Against Public Employee Claims Wanton or Reckless Conduct
2009-0014. Estate of Graves v. Circleville, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-168.Ross App. No. 06CA2900, 179 Ohio App.3d 479, 2008-Ohio-6052. Judgment of the court of appeals affirmed, and cause remanded to the trial court.Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.Pfeifer, J., concurs separately.Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-168.pdf
View oral argument video of this case.Requires the free Adobe Flash Player.
(Jan. 28, 2010) The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that a common law doctrine known as the “public duty rule” does not immunize employees of a political subdivision from personal liability for injuries they cause in the performance of their official duties in cases where the injured party alleges that the employee engaged in “wanton or reckless conduct.” The Court’s 6-1 majority opinion, authored by Justice Maureen O’Connor, affirmed a decision of the 4th District Court of Appeals.
The estate of Jillian Graves sued the city of Circleville and officers Peter Shaw and William Eversole and dispatcher Benjamin Carpenter (collectively, “the officers”) as individuals, seeking damages for Graves’ wrongful death. The suit alleged that the officers had improperly allowed Cornelius Copley to retrieve his vehicle from a police impound lot on the day after his arrest for DUI. The next day, while again driving while intoxicated, Copley collided with a vehicle being driven by Graves. Both Copley and Graves were killed in the accident.
The officers filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the estate’s claims against them as individuals under R.C. Chapter 2744, which grants broad statutory immunity from civil liability to political subdivisions and their employees for injuries, subject to certain exceptions. One of the stated exceptions is that employees of political subdivisions are not immune from liability when their acts or omissions are taken in a wanton or reckless manner. The trial court denied the summary judgment motion, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officers’ acts and omissions in dealing with Copley fell under the statutory exception to public employee immunity for wanton or reckless conduct.
The officers appealed that ruling, arguing that they could not be held liable for Graves’ injuries under a 1988 Supreme Court of Ohio decision, Sawicki v. Ottawa Hills, wherein the court adopted the “public duty rule,” a common law doctrine that provides immunity from civil liability in cases where a public employee causes injury to a third party through the breach of a “public duty,” i.e., by failing to perform a general duty owed to the public as a whole, as opposed to an individualized duty owed to the specific person seeking damages.
The 4th District Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to affirm the trial court’s decision denying summary judgment. The appellate majority held that the “public duty” rule set forth in the Sawicki decision does not apply to cases in which a public employee is accused of “wanton or reckless conduct.”
The court of appeals also agreed with the trial court’s finding that the estate had raised genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers had engaged in wanton or reckless conduct and if that conduct proximately caused Graves’ death. The officers sought and were granted Supreme Court review of the 4th District’s ruling.
Writing for the Court in today’s decision, Justice O’Connor pointed out that although Sawicki was decided in 1988, it addressed events that took place in 1981, during an interim period after a series of judicial decisions had abrogated Ohio’s common law doctrine of sovereign immunity and before the legislature had responded in 1985 by enacting R.C. Chapter 2744, which established a new statutory scheme providing general immunity for political subdivisions and their employees subject to specific exceptions.
Emphasizing that the public duty rule recognized by the Sawicki court was a judicial solution to a temporary legal vacuum that was later corrected by the enactment of R.C. Chapter 2744, Justice O’Connor wrote: “Our analysis in Sawicki and its progeny lead to the conclusion that the public-duty rule espoused in Sawicki does not apply in the instant case. ... We adopted the public-duty rule at a time when there was no immunity for a political subdivision or its employees. ... Political subdivisions and their employees now have statutory immunity. Thus, the rationale behind this court’s adoption of the public-duty rule in Sawicki is no longer compelling. Moreover, Sawicki did not address whether the public-duty rule was available as a defense for employees of a political subdivision, and we have never applied the rule in a case involving allegations of wanton and reckless conduct against an employee of a political subdivision. Because the events in this case occurred outside of the narrow timeframe under which Sawicki was decided, the public-duty rule adopted in Sawicki does not apply.” Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial and appellate court rulings denying summary judgment and allowing further proceedings in the estate’s claims against the officers.
Justice O’Connor’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O’Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.
Justice Paul E. Pfeifer entered a separate opinion in which he concurred with most of the majority decision, but said he did not join a section in which the majority commented on statutory theories of liability that Graves’ estate indicated it would pursue at trial “because (that commentary) is not necessary to the resolution of the issue before us. Having determined that the public-duty doctrine is not applicable to the case before us, this court should not discuss other issues that might be applicable to the case.” Justice Pfeifer expressed agreement with the majority’s limitation of the Sawicki public-duty rule, and said he looked forward “to the day when a majority of this court will say the same concerning sovereign immunity.”
ContactsJohn T. McLandrich, 440.248.7906, for officers Peter Shaw, William Eversole and Benjamin Carpenter.
Rex H. Elliott, 614.481.6000, for the Estate of Jillian Graves.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."