2020 Ohio 3471
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- William H. Evans, Jr., an inmate at Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC), sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) and Ohio Attorney General alleging inadequate medical care and medication delays by NEOCC staff.
- Evans referenced an earlier 2018 pro se action against NEOCC, CoreCivic (the private operator), and Diamond Pharmacy; he incorporated exhibits from that case into his Court of Claims filing.
- ODRC moved for dismissal and later for summary judgment, arguing NEOCC is privately owned and operated by CoreCivic, an independent contractor, and thus ODRC is not vicariously liable for CoreCivic employees.
- ODRC supported summary judgment with an affidavit from an Assistant Director stating CoreCivic hires, supervises, disciplines, and controls daily operations and staffing at NEOCC.
- The Court of Claims granted summary judgment for ODRC, finding no genuine dispute that CoreCivic is an independent contractor, not ODRC’s agent.
- On appeal Evans argued ODRC was liable under principal/agent or respondeat superior theories and (for the first time on appeal) that ODRC had a non-delegable duty; the appellate court affirmed, holding the non-delegable-duty theory waived below and that the record showed independent-contractor status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is ODRC liable for wrongful acts or omissions of a private contractor performing an ODRC-delegated duty? | Evans: ODRC remains liable when contractor performs delegated duties; respondeat superior or non-delegable duty should apply. | ODRC: CoreCivic is an independent contractor; ODRC lacks control over daily operations, so it is not vicariously liable. | Held: CoreCivic is an independent contractor; ODRC not liable vicariously. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate where principal/agent status allegedly disputed? | Evans: Principal/agent status is a factual issue precluding summary judgment. | ODRC: Evidence (affidavit, contract references) shows control rests with CoreCivic; no contrary evidence. | Held: No genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment appropriate. |
| Does respondeat superior apply because contractor must follow ODRC rules and Ohio law? | Evans: Contractual requirements and rule-adherence mean contractor acts as ODRC’s agent. | ODRC: Compliance obligations do not establish right to control mode/manner; control factors show independence. | Held: Contract and record do not show sufficient right to control; respondeat superior not established. |
| Was ODRC liable under a non-delegable-duty theory? | Evans (raised on appeal): Non-delegable duty arises from contract and statutory framework. | ODRC: Issue was not raised below; no contractual evidence establishing non-delegable duty. | Held: Issue waived for failure to raise in trial court; appellate court declined to consider; no summary-judgment support submitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 (1997) (sets forth the standard for summary judgment review under Civ.R. 56)