Burlingame v. Estate of Burlingame
2011 Ohio 1325
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Grace Burlingame, as representative of Grace Burlingame’s estate, sues for injuries from a July 4, 2007 collision in Canton, Ohio.
- Defendant City of Canton and James R. Coombs II allegedly operated a Canton fire truck in emergency mode when it struck the Burlingames’ van at a red light.
- The fire truck’s siren malfunctioned and the crew continued an emergency response; Captain Sacco directed Coombs to slow and use the air horn.
- The Burlingames allege the city and Coombs acted negligently and seek damages; the city asserts immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the city and Coombs, finding immunity; appellants appeal this ruling.
- The appellate court reverses and remands, holding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding recklessness/willfulness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coombs’ operation of the fire truck was willful or wanton. | Burlingame argues Coombs’ failure to maintain safe operation constitutes recklessness. | Coombs and City contend immunity applies if actions were not willful or wanton and were in response to an emergency. | Genuine issue of material fact; not as a matter of law. |
| Whether departmental policies and traffic laws negate immunity. | Violations and policy deviations could show recklessness. | Policies/policies violations are factors for recklessness but do not automatically defeat immunity. | Policies/policies violations may be considered; not dispositive; jury to decide. |
| Whether the trial court properly applied summary judgment standards in evaluating immunity. | Under Dresher and related cases, nonmovant evidence creates issues for trial. | Movant bore initial burden; if record shows no genuine issue, summary judgment appropriate. | Issue of law proper for de novo review; however, factual questions remain for jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 (2008) (recklessness can rise from policy violations if perverse disregard shown)
- Brockman v. Bell, 78 Ohio App.3d 508 (1992) (defines willful, wanton, reckless standards on a continuum with negligence)
- Hunter v. City of Columbus, 139 Ohio App.3d 962 (2000) (reckless standard may depend on circumstances; jury may resolve)
- Marchant v. Gouge, 187 Ohio App.3d 551, 932 N.E.2d 960, 2010-Ohio-2273 (Ohio App. 2010) (Restatement-based definitions of recklessness, willfulness, wantonness)
- Reynolds v. City of Oakwood, 38 Ohio App.3d 125, 528 N.E.2d 578 (1987) (siren/lighting factors in determining recklessness)