2020 Ohio 4215
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On January 26, 2017, Alianna DeFreeze, an Entrepreneurship Preparatory School Woodland Hills (EPrep) student, was abducted and murdered while traveling to school; parents allege EPrep did not notify them of her absence until a parent called that afternoon.
- Plaintiffs (Alianna’s estate administrator and family) sued EPrep and others for wrongful death, survival, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, nuisance, and spoliation of evidence.
- EPrep moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) asserting political-subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744; the trial court denied the motion and allowed discovery to determine whether EPrep’s conduct was governmental or proprietary.
- Plaintiffs later filed second and third amended complaints; the appellate court held those amendments were substantially identical and did not moot the appeal.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, concluded political-subdivision immunity bars the intentional-tort claims, and held that attendance-taking and parental notification are governmental functions, so negligence claims were not saved by R.C. 2744.02(B) exceptions; it reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal after amended complaints | Amended complaints supersede prior pleadings so appeal is moot | First amended complaint was basis for motion to dismiss; later amendments moot appeal | Not moot — later complaints were substantially identical as to EPrep, so appeal proceeds |
| Whether intentional-tort claims survive against a political subdivision under R.C. Chapter 2744 | Egregiousness of conduct should permit intentional-tort claims despite immunity | R.C. 2744 grants broad immunity and plaintiffs must plead a statutory exception; intentional torts are not covered by exceptions | Judgment for defendant: intentional-tort claims barred by statutory immunity; court will not judicially create an exception |
| Whether negligence claims survive under R.C. 2744.02(B) (B)(2) proprietary-function or (B)(4) physical-defect exceptions | EPrep’s use/operation of complex third-party notification technology is proprietary (customarily performed by private actors) or constitutes a physical defect on school grounds | Attendance-taking and parental notification are central, statutorily mandated functions of public education (governmental), and a malfunctioning notification system is not the sort of physical defect covered by B(4) | Judgment for defendant: taking attendance/parental notification are governmental functions (B(2) not met); B(4) inapplicable because alleged technology malfunction is not a physical defect within statute; immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (standard of review for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) de novo review)
- Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416 (standards for dismissal review)
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d 491 (12(B)(6) — plaintiff must show set of facts entitling relief)
- Wilson v. Stark Cty. Dept. of Human Servs., 70 Ohio St.3d 450 (political subdivisions are immune from intentional torts)
- Elston v. Howland Local Schools, 113 Ohio St.3d 314 (three-tier R.C. 2744 analysis)
- Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 451 (interpretation of R.C. 2744.02(B)(4))
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Dayton Freight Lines, Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 52 (R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) limits liability to injuries occurring on political-subdivision property)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (12(B)(6) pleading standard)