2015 Ohio 3483
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Appellant Nasrin Afjeh, an Ottawa Hills resident whose property was repeatedly adjudged a nuisance, sued village solicitor Sarah McHugh for assault and battery arising from a brief August 4, 2010 incident at a property‑maintenance meeting.
- At the meeting Afjeh, in a wheelchair with a cast on her right leg, was positioned blocking the only doorway after the meeting ended; McHugh asked her to move so others could exit.
- When Afjeh refused, McHugh and Officer Chris Sargent each grabbed a handle of Afjeh’s wheelchair and pushed it aside; the encounter lasted roughly 15–30 seconds and Afjeh’s husband then took control and left.
- Afjeh alleged McHugh violently shook and yanked the wheelchair, aggravating Afjeh’s leg injury, and asserted claims of assault, battery, and abuse of process (only the assault/battery claims against McHugh were appealed).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for McHugh; on appeal the Sixth District affirmed, concluding McHugh acted within the scope of employment and did not act with malicious purpose, bad faith, wantonness, or recklessness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McHugh was acting within the scope of employment when she moved Afjeh’s wheelchair | Afjeh claims the handling was an abusive, personal act beyond solicitors’ duties | McHugh contends she attended in official capacity and moved the chair to clear the meeting room for attendees | Held: McHugh acted within the scope of employment; moving the chair to clear the exit was related to her official role |
| Whether McHugh acted with malicious purpose, bad faith, wanton or reckless conduct | Afjeh asserts the movement was violent, intended to intimidate, and caused further injury | McHugh argues the movement was brief, intended to allow egress, and lacked any intent to harm or conscious disregard of risk | Held: No genuine issue of material fact that McHugh acted with malice, bad faith, wantonness, or recklessness; qualified immunity applies, so summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary judgment de novo review)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party burden and nonmoving party response in summary judgment)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (moving party must delineate basis for summary judgment)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 70 Ohio St.3d 351 (issues of malice/bad faith/wantonness generally for jury)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (definition of wanton and reckless conduct)