Alcus v. Bainbridge Twp., 2020 Ohio 626

Plaintiff James Alcus was injured and his vehicle damaged when a backhoe, negligently parked by township employee Francis Bularz at Bainbridge Township’s service department, rolled back into him.
The Alcuses sued the Township, the trustees, and Bularz; they also sued State Farm (the employer’s New York workers’ compensation/EL carrier) seeking a declaratory judgment that State Farm has no subrogation/reimbursement right or that any such right is subordinate to the Alcuses’ full recovery.
State Farm paid workers’ compensation benefits to Alcus, asserted a statutory lien/reimbursement right under New York law, and moved for partial summary judgment declaring its lien/reimbursement rights.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the Township defendants based on political-subdivision immunity and denied State Farm’s motion for partial summary judgment without discussion.
This court previously reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the Township defendants in Alcus v. Bainbridge Twp., 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2019-G-0205, 2020-Ohio-543 (Alcus I), making the immunity rulings and related assignments moot here.
Because the trial court denied State Farm’s motion as moot, the appellate court reversed that denial and remanded for the trial court to address State Farm’s partial-summary-judgment motion on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Is State Farm entitled to a lien/reimbursement from any recovery Alcus obtains?	Alcuses: R.C. 2744.05(B)(1) bars deducting or reimbursing amounts State Farm paid; Ohio public policy forbids State Farm’s position.	State Farm: New York law governs and grants a statutory lien and right to full reimbursement from recovery.	Trial court’s denial of State Farm’s partial SJ reversed; remanded for trial court to decide merits (motion no longer moot).
2) Does the exception to political-subdivision immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) apply?	Alcuses: Exception applies given the Township’s conduct.	Township: Exception does not apply; immunity applies.	Moot here — Alcus I reversed trial court’s grant of immunity (Alcuses met burden to show exception).
3) Is the Township entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5)?	Alcuses: Exception/limitations to immunity apply.	Township: R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) shields Township.	Moot here — addressed and reversed in Alcus I.
4) Did Bularz’s failure to engage the parking brake constitute reckless/wanton conduct under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)?	Alcuses: Bularz acted recklessly/wontonly.	Bularz: Failure to set parking brake not reckless/wanton; immunity applies.	Moot here — addressed in Alcus I; appellate decision reversed trial court’s grant of immunity.

Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (appellate courts should not decide issues the trial court did not consider)