Foley v. Univ. of Dayton (Slip Opinion)
81 N.E.3d 398
Ohio2016Background
- On March 14, 2013, Evan Foley, Andrew Foley, and Michael Fagans were arrested for burglary after Michael Groff (and his roommate Dylan Parfitt) reported them to police; charges were later dismissed or resolved in respondents’ favor.
- Respondents sued Groff and Parfitt in federal court asserting negligent misidentification (a negligence-based tort) arising from the wrongful identification that led to arrest.
- Petitioners moved for judgment on the pleadings or for certification of state-law questions, contending negligent misidentification sounded in defamation and/or was otherwise controlled by privilege or statute of limitations arguments.
- The federal court certified three questions of Ohio law: (1) statute of limitations for negligent misidentification, (2) applicability of absolute privilege (including statements to law enforcement), and (3) applicability of qualified privilege.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held that Ohio does not recognize a tort of negligent misidentification and therefore declined to answer the certified questions as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio recognizes a tort of negligent misidentification | Respondents: a separate negligence cause of action exists for wrongful identification leading to arrest and injury | Petitioners: no separate tort; claims sound in defamation/other existing torts and should be limited | Court: Ohio does not recognize negligent misidentification as a separate tort; claim rejected |
| If recognized, what statute of limitations applies | Respondents: would likely invoke longer negligence limitations | Petitioners: argue shorter defamation (one-year) limitations applies | Moot (court declined to answer because tort not recognized) |
| Whether absolute privilege protects statements (including to police) | Respondents: privilege not absolute for negligent misidentification | Petitioners: statements implicating crime are privileged (absolute or covered by defamation principles) | Moot (court declined to answer) |
| Whether qualified privilege applies to negligent misidentification | Respondents: privilege should not shield negligent, inaccurate reports | Petitioners: qualified privilege applies to communications about crime | Moot (court declined to answer) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mouse v. Cent. Sav. & Trust Co., 120 Ohio St. 599, 167 N.E. 868 (1929) (recognized false arrest damages and applied negligence/proximate-cause analysis)
- Walls v. Columbus, 10 Ohio App.3d 180, 461 N.E.2d 13 (10th Dist. 1983) (surmised potential negligence liability for supplying incorrect information that led to arrest)
- Wigfall v. Soc. Natl. Bank, 107 Ohio App.3d 667, 669 N.E.2d 313 (6th Dist. 1995) (appellate court recognized negligent misidentification as a separate tort)
- Trussell v. Gen. Motors Corp., 53 Ohio St.3d 142, 559 N.E.2d 732 (1990) (discussed existing malicious prosecution and other tort remedies for misuse of legal process)
- Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 (2007) (recognized false-light invasion of privacy; cited as example of courts creating new torts only with compelling policy reasons)