Anderson v. City of Massillon
951 N.E.2d 1063
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- May 6, 2008, Ronald E. Anderson and Javarre Tate died in a collision involving Massillon’s Ladder Truck 211 at Walnut and Johnson Streets.
- Emergency dispatches initially sent Engine 214 to a car fire; later Engine 211 was dispatched based on information that the car fire was near a house.
- Ladder Truck 211 traveled east on Walnut St; Anderson and Tate were traveling north on Johnson St. at the intersection.
- Appellees argued immunity under RC 2744.02(B) for injuries occurring while responding to an emergency; the trial court granted summary judgment to appellees.
- Appellant argued the conduct could be reckless/willful and not immune; the trial court did not resolve disputed facts, leading to reversal and remand.
- The appellate court held that material factual disputes exist regarding willful/wanton/reckless conduct and that summary judgment was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellees are immune under RC 2744.02(B). | Anderson contends immunity does not apply due to reckless conduct. | Massillon maintains immunity shields them from liability under the motor-vehicle exception. | No immunity; material facts disputed; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether the conduct was willful, wanton, or reckless under RC 2744.03. | Evidence supports reckless/willful conduct by appellees. | No perverse disregard; conduct not reckless as a matter of law. | Material facts create a dispute; jury to decide whether conduct was reckless. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the totality of the circumstances. | Judicially evaluate the circumstances to determine if triable issues remain. | Summary judgment proper if no genuine issue of material fact. | Trial court erred; reverse and remand for trial on liability and recklessness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. Liming, 89 Ohio St.3d 551 (2000) (three-tier immunity analysis for political subdivisions)
- Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 113 Ohio St.3d 266 (2007) (employee liability exception to immunity; independent of subdivision immunity analysis)
- O'Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 (2008) (recklessness per Restatement concept; agency policy violations alone insufficient)
- Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95 (1990) (distinction between intentional misconduct, recklessness, and negligence)
- Whitfield v. Dayton, 167 Ohio App.3d 172 (2006) (willful misconduct defined; superiority of standard over mere negligence)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 70 Ohio St.3d 351 (1994) (reckless/wanton standards; malice or bad faith considerations)
- O'Toole v. Denihan, 2008-Ohio-2574 (2008) (recklessness requires perverse disregard of a known risk)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (Dresher: burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (1987) (summary judgment standard at Civ.R. 56)