95 N.E.3d 446
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2018Background
- In April 2015 Linda Bradshaw tripped and fell outside a Family Dollar on W. 25th St., Cleveland, suffering serious knee injuries; she and her husband sued New Village (property owner) and Family Dollar for negligent sidewalk maintenance.
- New Village filed a third-party complaint against the city of Cleveland, alleging the city had the duty to maintain the public sidewalk and therefore was liable.
- Cleveland moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), asserting immunity under Ohio's Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act (R.C. Chapter 2744) because sidewalk maintenance is a governmental function.
- New Village opposed, arguing (1) the fall occurred on decorative/ornate pavers (not a traditional sidewalk) so immunity doesn't apply, and (2) Cleveland’s municipal ordinance (C.C.O. 173) created a voluntary assumption of liability under Home Rule.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss without opinion; Cleveland appealed. The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and accepted the third-party complaint’s allegations as true for the motion-to-dismiss standard.
- The appellate court held Cleveland immune: maintenance of public sidewalks is a governmental function under R.C. Chapter 2744; decorative treatment does not remove immunity; municipal ordinance and Home Rule do not abrogate Chapter 2744 immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cleveland is immune for sidewalk-maintenance claims under R.C. Chapter 2744 | New Village: sidewalk was decorative (not a traditional sidewalk) or city assumed liability via C.C.O. 173/Home Rule, so immunity doesn't apply | Cleveland: maintenance of public sidewalks is a governmental function; Chapter 2744 grants immunity; ordinance/Home Rule does not create liability | Held for Cleveland: sidewalk maintenance is a governmental function; immunity applies; decorative pavers and C.C.O. 173 do not defeat immunity |
| Whether facts pleaded preclude dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | New Village: factual nuance (decorative nature) creates issue of fact precluding dismissal | Cleveland: complaint alleges the fall was on a public sidewalk; even accepting facts, no set of facts would strip immunity | Held for Cleveland: no factual dispute that would overcome statutory immunity; dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (de novo review and motion-to-dismiss standard)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Comm. Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (motion to dismiss — plaintiff must show some set of facts to grant relief)
- Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278 (accept allegations as true; infer in favor of nonmoving party on Rule 12(B)(6))
- Vacha v. N. Ridgeville, 136 Ohio St.3d 199 (three-tiered R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)
- Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. Liming, 89 Ohio St.3d 551 (R.C. 2744 framework)
- Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (application of R.C. 2744 exceptions)
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 (R.C. 2744 defenses analysis)
- Wilson v. Cleveland, 132 Ohio St.3d 457 (maintenance of sidewalks recognized as governmental function under R.C. 2744)