Carter v. Reese
25 N.E.3d 1086
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Dennis Carter, a truck driver, became pinned when his right leg slipped between a parked trailer and a loading-dock after he had locked the tractor brakes but left the trailer brakes disengaged.
- Carter screamed for help; a passerby (Larry Reese) arrived, entered the truck cab, attempted to operate the rig, and (according to Carter) released the air brakes causing the truck to roll backward and crush Carter’s leg.
- Emergency responders later freed Carter; he was airlifted to a hospital and required an above-the-knee amputation of his right leg.
- Carter sued Reese for negligence, alleging Reese mishandled the truck during the attempted rescue.
- Reese asserted immunity under Ohio’s Good Samaritan statute, R.C. 2305.23, and moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Reese; the Twelfth District affirmed, holding R.C. 2305.23 protects lay rescuers from civil liability for emergency care unless their conduct is willful or wanton.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 2305.23 apply to non-medical lay rescuers and non-medical "emergency care"? | Carter: "emergency care" means emergency medical care and statute protects medical professionals only. | Reese: Statute uses "no person" and "emergency care" broadly; it covers lay rescuers performing emergency aid. | Court: R.C. 2305.23 covers any person providing emergency care (medical or non-medical); not limited to health professionals. |
| Was there an "emergency" that triggered R.C. 2305.23? | Carter: He was merely trapped and initially uninjured; no qualifying emergency. | Reese: A pinned, bleeding person yelling for help is an unforeseen circumstance requiring immediate action. | Court: The common meaning of emergency (pressing need for help) was met; Reese’s attempt was emergency care. |
| Did Reese’s conduct constitute willful or wanton misconduct (statutory exception)? | Carter: Reese acted negligently by operating a semi he did not know how to drive; genuine fact issue exists. | Reese: Even if negligent, conduct did not rise to willful or wanton misconduct. | Court: No evidence of willful or wanton misconduct; summary judgment appropriate. |
| Should summary judgment be denied because material facts are disputed (e.g., who caused the truck to roll)? | Carter: Disputed facts about Reese’s actions and credibility create triable issues. | Reese: Even accepting Carter’s version, immunity applies unless willful/wanton conduct shown. | Court: Even construing facts favorably to Carter, no evidence of willful/wanton behavior; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Primes v. Tyler, 43 Ohio St.3d 195 (Ohio 1975) (discusses Good Samaritan concept and legislative objective in a footnote)
- Held v. City of Rocky River, 34 Ohio App.3d 35 (8th Dist. 1986) (off-duty rescuer’s act to free pinned firefighter characterized as emergency care under Good Samaritan statute)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 2012) (definitional guidance for willful conduct used in analysis)