Yates v. Mansfield Board of Education, 102 Ohio St. 3d 205, 2004-Ohio-2491 - Liability for Failure to Report Sexual Abuse

During the 1996-1997 school year a teacher engaged in sexual inappropriate activity with a student. The student reported it to the school’s administration, but the administration never reported this incident to any law enforcement agency. Three years later the same teacher was involved in another episode of inappropriate behavior with another student. R.C. 2151.421 required the school board to report allegations of alleged sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities. The plaintiffs contended the applicable version of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) provided an exception to governmental immunity, and allowed them to make the claim against the school board for this statutory violation. The Supreme Court agreed and held the Board of Education may be held liable for failing to report abuse, when this failure to report leads to another child being abused. It is important to note this decision impacts only claims where the actionable abuse occurred prior to April 9, 2003, as the newer version of the statute preclude this theory of liability.

 

Heritage Insurance Company v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 104 Ohio St. 3d 513, 2004-Ohio-6766 - Contribution Claims

Heritage Mutual’s insured was sued by the estate of a woman who was killed in a motor vehicle accident at one of their construction sites. The estate received a jury award in their favor against the insured and Heritage Insurance paid the amount of the verdict.

Heritage and their insured then filed suit in the Ohio Court of Claims, against the Ohio Department of Transportation, alleging ODOT was a joint tortfeasor, and alleging an entitlement to contribution. ODOT contended R.C. §2743.02(D) barred a joint tortfeasor from asserting a subrogation claim against a state agency. The Supreme Court disagreed and held the statute did not trigger immunity and bar a contribution claim.

 

Boggs v. City of Bowling Green, 2003-Ohio-409 - Sovereign Immunity

Plaintiff sustained injuries while participating in a softball league at a city park and filed suit against the city on theories of negligence and intentional tort. In addition, plaintiff claimed Ohio’s immunity statute (R.C.§2744) was unconstitutional. The trial court disagreed and granted the city’s motion for summary judgment indicating plaintiff was a “recreational user” and, therefore, the city was immune from suit. On appeal, plaintiff argued she was not a “recreational user” because she paid a fee to play in the softball league. An individual is deemed a “recreational user” according to R.C. §1533.18(B) if he “enters or uses municipal land, which is held open to the general public free of charge for recreational pursuits.” Here, the only fee plaintiff paid was to her team’s sponsor, not the municipality. Therefore, since plaintiff was deemed a “recreational user,” the municipality was immune from suit.

 

Stephen Sabulsky v. Trumbull County, Ohio, unreported, Trumbull County—Governmental Immunity for Workplace Intentional Tort

Plaintiff, a corrections officer at the Trumbull County Jail, sued Trumbull County for employer intentional tort, arising from injuries he sustained during an altercation with inmates trying to escape. The inmates were able to get into a position allowing them to escape and to attack appellant, because the electric locking mechanism at the door leading from the maximum security area into the vestibule area had not been working for some time. Despite having been notified that the door was not functioning, and was a safety hazard, it had not been repaired prior to the incident. The officer sued his employer, Trumbull County, for employer intentional tort. Noting that Ohio courts have consistently held that political subdivisions are immune from intentional tort claims under R.C. §2744, the court initially noted that none of the exceptions to liability set forth in R.C. §2744.02(A) were applicable. The court then considered whether any of the exceptions to non-liability, as set forth in R.C. §2744.09 would apply, which provides, in effect, that an employee may sue his employer/political subdivision if the claim arises “out of the employment relationship.” However, the court held that because an intentional tort claim brought against a political subdivision is outside the employment relationship, the immunity afforded a political subdivision under R.C. §2744 applies, and plaintiff’s claim was properly dismissed.

 

Safe Auto Insurance Company v. Corson, 2004-Ohio-249 - Effect of Self-Insured Tortfeasor

Safe Auto’s insured was injured in an accident with a City of Cincinnati vehicle. The City of Cincinnati was self-insured for motor vehicle liability. The City contended since it had no insurance it was uninsured, and therefore the injured party’s only recourse was to make a UM claim under its policy with Safe Auto. The court of appeals rejected this argument, noting the statutory definition of an uninsured motorist did not include self-insured or municipal entities. Accordingly no UM coverage was owed, and the injured person was allowed to proceed directly against the City of Cincinnati.

 

Spencer v. Lakeview School District, 2004-Ohio-5303 - Administration of Medication

A student died after suffering an asthma attack in gym class. After complaining of distress, he was allowed to go to the locker room, unsupervised, to use his inhaler. He was ultimately found dead by school authorities in the locker room. The court of appeals determined the school district was not entitled to immunity since the suit involved allegations of negligence within or on the grounds of the school building. The court of appeals held issues such as the level of medical staffing and training of staff on medical issues were discretionary functions and was subject to immunity. However, the conduct of school personnel toward plaintiff’s decedent was not a decision subject to immunity protection.

 

Cianciola v. Fairlawn, 156 Ohio App. 3d 16, 2004-Ohio-327 - Paramedic Liability

Plaintiff was struck by a rolling gurney outside of a hospital. She contended Fairlawn’s paramedics were negligent in allowing the gurney to roll away. The court of appeals concluded the employees were involved in a governmental function at the time of the incident. The court also determined none of the five exceptions to immunity recognized by R.C. 2004.02(B) were present and therefore summary judgment in favor of the City on the issue of immunity was proper.

 

Willis v. Commodity Specialists Company, 2004-Ohio-4807 - Road Clean Up

Plaintiff was injured while riding his motorcycle over a grain spill on a public roadway. He contended the City was at fault for failing to keep the roadway free from debris and hindrances. The spill was in the process of being cleaned up at the time of the accident. Plaintiff contended that police personnel should have diverted traffic. The court of appeals determined this did not constitute a breach of the City’s duty to keep the roadways clear. The court also determined the police department’s decision on how to direct traffic in response to the spill was entitled to immunity.

 

Thompson v. Bagley, 2005-Ohio-1921 - Sovereign Immunity

Plaintiff sued a school district after his decedent drowned in a school swimming pool.  The appellate court held pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(B)(4), the district was not entitled to assert any discretionary defenses as the incident in question occurred in a school building, and therefore the district was not entitled to immunity. 

 

Copeland v. Cincinnati, 2005-Ohio-1179 – Sexual Assault Liability

Plaintiff was sexually assaulted by other children while attending a city-operated day camp.  The appellate court held the city was not immune under R.C. 2744.01(A)(2) since the operation of the day camp was a proprietary function and not discretionary.