2022 Ohio 3272
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- On Jan. 11, 2017, Officer James Lusk (Middletown PD) responded to an emergency dispatch about a child struck by a car; he activated emergency lights and left the station.
- Dashcam shows Lusk ran a red at one intersection, reached ~60 mph, then slowed to ~35 mph approaching the collision intersection (35 MPH zone) and proceeded into the intersection.
- Larry Carozza, driving a terminal-tractor, entered the same intersection on a green light and was struck; neither driver saw the other.
- Carozza and his wife sued Lusk and the City for negligence; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744; the trial court denied the motions.
- The Twelfth District reversed, holding that (1) the City is entitled to immunity because Lusk’s conduct was not "willful or wanton," and (2) Lusk is personally immune because his conduct was not "malicious, in bad faith, wanton, or reckless."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City is immune under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a) (vehicle operated by police responding to emergency) | Lusk’s driving through lights and at high speed amounted to willful or wanton misconduct, negating City immunity | Lusk was responding to an emergency, and his driving did not rise to willful or wanton misconduct | Court: City entitled to immunity; conduct not willful/wanton |
| Whether Lusk is immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) (employee immunity except for malicious/bad faith/wanton/reckless) | Lusk’s operation was reckless (perverse disregard of known risk), so immunity should be denied | Lusk slowed, used lights, and did not consciously disregard a known risk; at most negligent | Court: Lusk entitled to immunity; conduct not reckless, malicious, or in bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Pelletier v. Campbell, 153 Ohio St.3d 611 (Ohio 2018) (summary-judgment standard and immunity as question of law)
- McConnell v. Dudley, 158 Ohio St.3d 388 (Ohio 2019) (R.C. 2744 framework and emergency-response analysis)
- Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio 2011) (R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a) applicability for police vehicle operation)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 2012) (definitions/ distinctions among willful, wanton, and reckless conduct)
- O'Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 (Ohio 2008) (recklessness requires conscious disregard of known risk)
- A.J.R. v. Lute, 163 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio 2020) (recklessness defined as perverse disregard of a known risk)
- Lipscomb v. Lewis, 85 Ohio App.3d 97 (12th Dist. 1993) (officer not statutorily required to use siren; absence of siren alone not willful/wanton misconduct)