Coleman v. Portage County Engineer
133 Ohio St. 3d 28
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Colemans own property in Rootstown and sue Portage County Engineer over repeated flooding from storm sewers during 1982, 1989, 2003, 2005, and 2009.
- Plaintiffs allege the drainage from SR 44 and a cross-passing piping system through a school property caused water to back up onto their land, with ongoing nuisance and damages.
- They contend the county failed to design, construct, upgrade, and maintain an adequate drainage/water-piping system and neglected to implement a proper drainage plan.
- The county engineer moved to dismiss, claiming immunity under Ohio R.C. Chapter 2744 for acts related to governmental or proprietary functions; trial court agreed.
- Court of Appeals held immunity for design/construction (governmental function) but allowed potential liability for negligent maintenance/upkeep of the sewer, relying on Moore and a maintenance-based reading of §2744.01(G)(2)(d).
- Ohio Supreme Court accepted discretionary appeal to decide whether upgrading a sewer system is a governmental function or a proprietary function and thus subject to immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is upgrading sewer capacity a governmental or proprietary function? | Coleman argues maintenance-like readings apply; upgrading could be proprietary. | Portage County Engineer argues upgrading is design/construction, a governmental function immune from liability. | Upgrading is a governmental function (design/construction), immunity applies. |
| Can a failure to upgrade be treated as negligent maintenance under 2744.02(B)(2)? | Maintenance/uptake reading could render claims actionable under proprietary function. | Failure to upgrade is not maintenance; it is a design/construction issue immune from liability. | Failure to upgrade is design/construction, not maintenance; not actionable under 2744.02(B)(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- Spitzer v. Mid Continent Constr. Co., Inc., 2007-Ohio-6067 (Ohio 2007) (establishes framework for governmental vs. proprietary function analysis)
- Murray v. Chillicothe, 164 Ohio App.3d 294 (Ohio App.3d 2005) (distinguishes maintenance from design/construction in sewer-system cases)
- Essman v. Portsmouth, 2010-Ohio-4837 (4th Dist. 2010) (maintenance vs. design/construction distinction in sewer cases)
- Doud v. Cincinnati, 152 Ohio St. 132 (1949) (early authority recognizing design/maintenance distinctions in infrastructure liability)
- Nice v. Marysville, 82 Ohio App.3d 109 (1992) (illustrates maintenance scope versus design scope in sewer systems)
- Moore v. Streetsboro, 2009-Ohio-6511 (11th Dist. 2009) (immunity for design/construction of sewer systems; informs propriety of upgrade claims)