Columbus v. Sanders
2012 Ohio 1514
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- City of Columbus owns property adjoining O’Shaughnessy Reservoir; Sanders own property adjacent to City property.
- City filed suit May 3, 2010 for trespass, claiming Sanders encroached, cut trees, cleared, mowed, and stored on City property.
- City alleged uses of the property include wildlife habitat, pollutant filtration, bank stabilization, raw water storage, and potential reservoir recreation.
- Appellants counterclaimed that City allowed overgrowth and misled them about boat-dock permits, allegedly harming property values and enjoyment.
- Trial court granted City’s Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Appellants’ amended counterclaim; City’s complaint dismissed without prejudice, finalizing the order for appeal
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City is immune from liability under R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) for actions involving city property. | Sanders contend use of property is proprietary, triggering liability. | City argues use is governmental; immunity applying. | City immune; no viable proprietary-function exception established |
Key Cases Cited
- Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 1998) (three-tier immunity analysis for political subdivisions)
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (Ohio 1996) (establishes Civ.R. 12(C) de novo review framework and immunity standards)
- Sisler v. Lancaster, 2010-Ohio-3039 (5th Dist.) (immunity regarding intentional tort claims under R.C. 2744.02)
- Bauer v. Brunswick, 2011-Ohio-4877 (9th Dist.) (proprietary vs. governmental function analysis under immunity framework)
- Moore v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 2009-Ohio-1250 (Ohio Supreme Court) (definitive standards for what constitutes a proprietary function)