Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. v. Lucas Cty. Sanit. Engineers
2017 Ohio 4108
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Columbia Gas sued Lucas County Sanitary Engineers after a county employee punctured a Columbia Gas underground gas line while responding to a suspected water-main break on December 30, 2012.
- The puncture occurred while the crew leader, David Vincent, was probing for a water main shutoff after an emergency OUPS request and flags were placed by an OUPS locator. Vincent testified the puncture was ~6 feet from marked location.
- Columbia Gas submitted an affidavit stating the damage occurred at the adjacent property (5442 Homeland Rd.), not 5424, and that no OUPS request was made for 5442, suggesting the county crew worked at the wrong address.
- Lucas County moved for summary judgment asserting statutory immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744, arguing the incident occurred during a proprietary function (water utility repair) and that the employee was not negligent because OUPS had marked the site.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, finding genuine factual disputes about the damage location and whether the OUPS locator was correctly informed. The county appealed.
- The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding genuine issues of material fact remain regarding negligence and thus immunity was not resolved as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lucas County is entitled to statutory immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 because the damage arose during a proprietary function | Columbia Gas: damage occurred at a different address (5442) with no OUPS request, so county employees failed to determine utility locations and were negligent, negating immunity | Lucas County: work was part of a proprietary function; OUPS was contacted and marked the site, and the employee exercised due care — any damage resulted from locator error, not county negligence | Denied immunity on summary judgment because genuine factual disputes exist about where damage occurred and whether the OUPS marking/notification was accurate, so summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts., 61 Ohio App.3d 127 (summary-judgment standard on appeal)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary-judgment standard and review)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Civ.R. 56 summary-judgment criteria)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (burden-shifting framework on summary judgment)
- Elston v. Howland Local Schools, 113 Ohio St.3d 314 (three-step R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (elements of actionable negligence)
- GTE N., Inc. v. Carr, 84 Ohio App.3d 776 (duty to ascertain presence of underground utilities)