Estate of Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2019 Ohio 1794
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Victim Reagan Tokes was murdered on Feb. 8, 2017 by Brian Golsby, who had been released from prison and was under post-release control supervised by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC).
- DRC had placed an ankle GPS monitor on Golsby and imposed curfew but allegedly did not program automatic curfew alerts, failed to use GPS data proactively, and did not arrest or further restrict Golsby after earlier violations.
- The Estate sued DRC in the Court of Claims for wrongful death and survivorship damages, alleging negligent monitoring/supervision caused Tokes’s death.
- DRC moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), invoking the public-duty immunity in R.C. 2743.01(E)(1) and R.C. 2743.02(A)(3) and arguing no duty existed to the individual victim.
- The Court of Claims dismissed for failure to state a claim, finding no special relationship and that Golsby was a releasee (post-release control), not a furloughee; the Estate appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2743.01(E)(1) and R.C. 2743.02(A)(3) violate Ohio Const. Art. I, §16 | Section 16 abolished sovereign immunity and is self-executing; statutes that bar suits against the state are unconstitutional | §16 allows suits “in such courts and in such manner as may be provided by law,” so legislature may condition or limit suits; statutes are constitutional | Statutes are constitutional; §16 is not self-executing and the public-duty provisions stand |
| Whether public-duty immunity bars Estate’s negligence claims | DRC’s active monitoring created a duty to the specific victim (or a special relationship) | DRC’s duties were public in nature; no special relationship was pled | No special relationship pleaded under R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(b); public-duty immunity applies; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether R.C. 2967.26 (furlough statute) creates a statutory duty (negligence per se) | Golsby was effectively furloughed and R.C. 2967.26 required confinement during non-work hours, so DRC had a statutory duty | Complaint alleges Golsby was on post-release control (R.C. 2967.28) and thus a releasee, not a furloughee; R.C. 2967.26 inapplicable | R.C. 2967.26 is inapplicable because complaint pleads post-release control (releasee); Reynolds (furlough liability) does not apply |
| Whether common-law duties (Restatement §§314–315, Estates of Morgan) impose liability despite statute | Even if public-duty doctrine applies, common-law duty to control dangerous third party should impose liability | Public-duty immunity still bars claims absent a special relationship; complaint lacks required allegations | Common-law duty theories fail because public-duty immunity applies and no special relationship was pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrett v. Sandusky, 68 Ohio St.3d 139 (1994) (city’s operation of a wave pool not an immunized governmental function; Pfeiffer concurrence argued §16 abolishes sovereign immunity)
- Raudabaugh v. State, 96 Ohio St. 513 (1917) (held §16 is not self-executing; legislative consent required to sue the state)
- Krause, Admr., v. State, 31 Ohio St.2d 132 (1972) (§16 empowers General Assembly to designate courts and manner for suits against the state)
- Schenkolewski v. Cleveland Metroparks Sys., 67 Ohio St.2d 31 (1981) (courts may modify or abrogate common-law governmental immunity; did not overrule Raudabaugh/Krause holding that §16 is not self-executing)
- Reynolds v. State, Div. of Parole & Community Servs., 14 Ohio St.3d 68 (1984) (R.C. 2967.26 imposes a duty to confine furloughed prisoners during non-working hours; failure is negligence per se)
- Hurst v. State Dept. of Rehab., 72 Ohio St.3d 325 (1995) (public-duty doctrine applies to department supervision; distinguishes parole/furlough duties)
- Gelbman v. Second Natl. Bank, 9 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (Ohio adopted Restatement §§314–315 regarding duties to control third parties)