E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Akron
976 N.E.2d 276
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- In May 2007, a water main rupture at Glenwood Ave. and Gorge Blvd. in Akron prompted overnight observations by the Akron Highway Department.
- An initial assessment barricaded the area; a later re-check suggested the break was less serious, delaying full inspection until morning.
- Dominion East Ohio Gas notified its customers; a Dominion employee found a hole in the underside of a natural gas line located above the water main break.
- Dominion sued Akron for damages related to the gas line repair and related customer delivery systems, alleging negligent failure to dispatch a repair crew overnight.
- The trial court denied summary judgment to both parties; Akron appealed, arguing immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding that Akron was immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) and that the trial court erred in denying summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2744.03(A)(5) immunity applies. | Dominion contends no discretionary immunity shield applies. | Akron asserts discretionary allocation of resources immunizes the decision not to dispatch overnight. | Yes; Akron is immune under 2744.03(A)(5). |
| Whether 2744.03(A)(3) immunity applies instead of or in addition to (A)(5). | Dominion argues the allegations fall outside discretionary policy decisions. | Akron contends the claim involves policy-level discretion implied by (A)(3). | The (A)(3) issue is moot; the court affirmed immunity under (A)(5). |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (establishes de novo review and summary-judgment standard)
- Shumaker v. Park Lane Manor of Akron, 2011-Ohio-1052 (9th Dist. 2011) (discretion under 2744.03(A)(5) protects allocation of scarce resources)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (2006-Ohio-3455) (affidavits inconsistent with deposition require credibility review)
- Wright v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 73 Ohio St.3d 571 (1995) (summary-judgment considerations; evidence construed in nonmovant's favor)
- Fowler v. Williams Cty. Commrs., 111 Ohio App.3d 760 (1996) (concepts of wanton or reckless conduct in immunity analysis)
- Hall v. Fort Frye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 111 Ohio App.3d 690 (1996) (immunity relates to discretionary decisions in public policy execution)