Burlingame v. Estate of Burlingame
2013 Ohio 3447
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- This is an Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals civil appeal on remand from the Ohio Supreme Court regarding immunity for a Canton Fire Department vehicle collision.
- Estate representatives (Burlingame) and Eva Finley (administrator) challenge a trial court summary judgment granting immunity to the City of Canton and James R. Coombs II.
- The trial court held that Canton and Coombs were entitled to immunity from liability under statutory immunity.
- On remand, the court must apply current Ohio Supreme Court law defining willful, wanton, and reckless conduct as clarified in Anderson v. Massillon.
- The court held that violations of internal departmental policies may be relevant to culpability but are not per se willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on immunity. | Burlingame contends factual questions on recklessness precluded immunity. | Canton's defendants argue statutory immunity applied as a matter of law. | No; immunity inappropriate under Anderson's definitions; remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio Supreme Court 2012) (defines willful, wanton, and reckless; multi-tier standards)
- Burlingame v. Estate of Burlingame, 5th Dist. No. 2010-CA-00124, 2011-Ohio-1325 (Ohio App. Dist. 5th Cir. 2011) (reversal/remand on immunity after considering recklessness)