Fedarko v. Cleveland
12 N.E.3d 1254
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In Oct. 2010 Sally Fedarko fell through a manhole on a Cable Avenue sidewalk after the steel cover gave way; she was injured and her husband sued for loss of consortium.
- The manhole was a brick-lined, steel‑covered water meter vault that was abandoned (no meters) at the time of the incident; the city later backfilled and cemented it.
- City water division records showed an inspection in 2008 reporting no missing cover; post-incident inspection found the steel ring supporting the cover "worn" from age/wear, with no way to fix the duration of that condition.
- Plaintiffs alleged the city negligently failed to inspect/maintain/repair the defective manhole cover and invoked the R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) exception to political‑subdivision immunity (negligent performance of proprietary functions).
- The trial court denied the city’s summary-judgment motion on immunity; the city appealed, arguing the manhole/cover were part of sidewalk maintenance (a governmental function) and, alternatively, that it lacked notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the manhole cover/vault are part of the city water system (proprietary) or part of sidewalk maintenance (governmental) | Fedarko: cover and vault are part of the water system and thus proprietary; R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) applies | City: cover/vault are sidewalk infrastructure; maintenance is a governmental function entitled to immunity | Held: cover/vault are part of the city water system (proprietary); R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) applies |
| Whether plaintiffs presented evidence creating genuine issues of constructive notice/breach to defeat immunity | Fedarko: condition (worn steel ring) and facts permit an inference the city had constructive notice or should have discovered the defect | City: no prior complaints or evidence of how long defect existed; no constructive notice; summary judgment warranted | Held: factual questions exist about constructive notice and breach (summary judgment properly denied) |
| Whether inspections/inspection failures are protected as governmental functions | Fedarko: negligence concerns proprietary water‑system maintenance/inspection | City: inspection duties here are governmental (sidewalk/public‑roads) so immunity applies | Held: irrelevant because manhole is proprietary; denial of summary judgment upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24, 697 N.E.2d 610 (Ohio 1998) (establishes three‑tier R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)
- Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 451, 780 N.E.2d 543 (Ohio 2002) (clarifies R.C. 2744 tiers and burden shifting)
- Ryll v. Columbus Fireworks Display Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 467, 769 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio 2002) (lists R.C. 2744 exceptions)
- Tyler v. Cleveland, 129 Ohio App.3d 441, 717 N.E.2d 1175 (8th Dist. 1998) (constructive‑notice issues can preclude summary judgment in manhole‑collapse cases)
- Scott v. Columbus Dep’t of Pub. Util., 192 Ohio App.3d 465, 949 N.E.2d 552 (10th Dist. 2011) (distinguishes sidewalk‑trip cases from manhole‑collapse cases; negligent maintenance of underlying support can be proprietary)