Cameron v. Univ. of Toledo
2014 Ohio 5587
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Kyle Cameron, a recruited scholarship football player at the University of Toledo, was injured in an alleged hazing incident before his freshman year and lost his athletic career.
- Cameron sued the University of Toledo, its coach and several employees in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas alleging violation of Ohio’s anti-hazing statute (R.C. 2307.44) and negligence, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), arguing the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over monetary claims against the state and its employees.
- Trial court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Cameron appealed.
- The central statutory question was whether R.C. 2307.44’s phrase “notwithstanding Chapter 2743.” removes Court of Claims’ exclusive jurisdiction over claims implicating state universities and their employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2307.44 displaces the Court of Claims’ exclusive jurisdiction over civil hazing claims against a public university and its employees | R.C. 2307.44’s “notwithstanding Chapter 2743.” shows legislative intent to allow hazing suits against institutions in common pleas courts | The “notwithstanding” clause is either not yet triggered (no employee liability found) or merely creates an additional basis to hold the institution liable but does not change forum; Court of Claims remains the proper forum | Court held the clause is conditioned on a finding of employee liability; because immunity issues must be first determined in the Court of Claims under R.C. 2743.02(F), the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Dargart v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 171 Ohio App.3d 439 (6th Dist.) (standard of review for Civ.R. 12(B)(1) jurisdictional dismissals)
- State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock, 42 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1989) (standard for whether complaint raises a cause of action cognizable by the forum)
- Cline v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 61 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1991) (principles of statutory construction; give effect to legislative intent and plain language)
- Friedman v. Johnson, 18 Ohio St.3d 85 (Ohio 1985) (purpose of Court of Claims Act is centralized adjudication of claims against the state; exceptions to exclusive jurisdiction are narrow)