2018 Ohio 2741
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Oct. 3, 2015, East Cleveland officer Kyle Pettus struck and killed pedestrian Christopher Kimble in a dark intersection while driving a police cruiser with one inoperable headlight; lights and siren were not activated and Pettus was allegedly traveling 35–40 mph in a 25 mph zone.
- Painted crosswalks and crosswalk signs at the intersection were worn/inoperable and overhead street lights were out.
- Decedent’s mother, Latoya Ceasor, sued Pettus and the City for wrongful death, alleging negligent/wanton driving, vehicle maintenance/training failures, vicarious liability, and spoliation of body-camera evidence.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting political-subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744; plaintiff opposed and relied on a crash reconstruction report.
- Trial court denied defendants’ motion; defendants appealed the denial of immunity and also challenged the trial court’s refusal to strike the expert report. The appellate court affirmed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review denial of summary judgment raising R.C. 2744 immunity | Ceasor argued the denial is appealable insofar as it denies immunity exceptions not applicable | Defendants implied the denial was improper but pursued review on immunity grounds | Court has jurisdiction to review denial of immunity under R.C. 2744.02(C) and limited its review to immunity issues |
| Whether R.C. 2744 exceptions (motor-vehicle exception or employee misconduct exception) bar immunity | Ceasor: R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) applies (negligent operation by employee) and R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) precludes immunity if conduct was wanton/reckless | City: Pettus was entitled to immunity (including as responding to an emergency); no exception applies | Court: Genuine issues of material fact exist whether Pettus acted wantonly/recklessly; summary judgment on immunity improper |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s expert (crash reconstruction) report | Ceasor: Report was properly before the court as Civ.R. 56 evidence; it had been provided earlier | City: Report was untimely under local rules and should be struck | Court: Denial was not an abuse of discretion because report was properly before the court for summary-judgment purposes |
| Whether appellate court should decide proximate-causation and spoliation claims on immunity appeal | Ceasor: Merits support denial of immunity and can be considered | City: argued merits disprove liability and thus support immunity | Court: Declined to address merits (proximate causation/spoliation) as they are not ripe within its limited immunity review |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (denial of immunity under R.C. 2744 is final, appealable)
- Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. Liming, 89 Ohio St.3d 551 (2000) (three-tier R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial evidentiary burden)
- Chavalia v. Cleveland, 87 N.E.3d 705 (2017) (wanton/reckless conduct under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) is typically a jury question)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 983 N.E.2d 266 (2012) (definition of wanton misconduct)