2019 Ohio 4444
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On August 25, 2017, appellee Lisa Carswell’s son died from a gunshot while seated in the back of a police cruiser; Carswell filed a wrongful-death complaint May 10, 2018 naming the City of Akron and others.
- Complaint asserted multiple counts against the City (wrongful death, loss of consortium, survival, spoliation of evidence, state civil rights, punitive damages); only the City’s political-subdivision immunity claim is at issue on appeal.
- The City removed the case to federal court, which remanded; the City then moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C), asserting immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- The trial court granted the motion in part but denied it as to the claims here, concluding the complaint’s allegations could allow an exception to immunity (noting the automobile exception) and therefore the City could not show entitlement to judgment on the pleadings.
- The City appealed solely the denial of immunity; the court of appeals affirmed, holding the City failed to show beyond doubt that no set of facts could overcome political-subdivision immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying City’s Civ.R. 12(C) motion asserting political-subdivision immunity | Carswell argued her complaint sufficiently pleads facts that could fall within an exception to immunity and she is not required to plead exceptions at the pleading stage | City argued it is entitled to immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 and the pleadings show no exception applies | Court held City failed to show beyond doubt that immunity applied; affirmed denial of judgment on the pleadings |
| Whether the automobile exception (R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)) was pleaded or supports relief | Carswell argued the complaint contains allegations that could implicate negligent operation of a vehicle and thus the auto exception | City argued Carswell failed to allege negligent operation or causation sufficient to trigger the auto exception | Court did not decide the exception’s applicability; instead concluded pleadings did not conclusively establish immunity, so dismissal was improper |
| Whether a plaintiff must plead the absence of an immunity defense or exceptions at the complaint stage | Carswell argued no heightened pleading required; plaintiff need not anticipate affirmative defenses or prove exceptions in initial complaint | City contended plaintiff failed to plead facts showing an exception, so City is entitled to judgment | Court held plaintiffs are not required to plead or prove absence of affirmative defenses at the pleading stage; immunity is an affirmative defense for the defendant to assert |
| Whether the City timely asserted immunity in a responsive pleading (prerequisite to 12(C) adjudication) | Carswell noted the trial record did not clearly show the City raised immunity in an answer in state court | City relied on its motion for judgment on the pleadings based on immunity (and an answer filed in federal court during removal) | Court observed the state-court record is unclear whether City timely pleaded immunity; this uncertainty further undercuts City’s claim that immunity is established on the face of the pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- Gawloski v. Miller Brewing Co., 96 Ohio App.3d 160 (9th Dist. 1994) (standard for ruling on judgment on the pleadings)
- White v. King, 147 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio 2016) (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(C) legal questions)
- Hubbell v. City of Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2007) (denial of immunity is a final, appealable order)
- Supportive Solutions, L.L.C. v. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, 137 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2013) (statutory immunity is an affirmative defense that must be timely asserted)
- Turner v. Cent. Local School Dist., 85 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1999) (affirmative defenses and pleading obligations)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1991) (plaintiff should not be required to plead proof in the complaint)
- Epperly v. Medina City Bd. of Edn., 64 Ohio App.3d 74 (9th Dist. 1989) (Civ.R.12(C) may test an affirmative defense only when validity can be determined from the pleadings)
- Scott v. Columbus Dept. of Pub. Utils., 192 Ohio App.3d 465 (10th Dist. 2011) (requirement that plaintiff need not resolve immunity at pleading stage)