Garner v. Robart
2011 Ohio 1519
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Garner sued City Officials in Summit County for alleged acts related to Garner’s employment termination and investigation by the City.
- City Officials moved for summary judgment on political subdivision immunity; the trial court denied immunity.
- Garner, a building and zoning inspector, reported safety concerns at a city event involving tents anchored by water-filled buckets.
- The Mayor, Earley, and police discussed Garner after Earley informed Robart; an exchange occurred in the Green Room.
- The city conducted an internal investigation, hired a private investigator, and placed a GPS device on Garner’s city vehicle; Garner was terminated and later reinstated by an arbitrator; Garner subsequently suffered a stroke.
- This appeal challenges immunity determinations; the appellate court affirms denial of immunity and the trial court’s ruling on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying immunity | Garner: immunity not established as a matter of law | City Officials: immunity should apply under the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act | Immunity denial affirmed; interpretation hinges on Dresher standard |
| Whether the City Officials bore their Dresher burden to show no genuine issue of material fact | Garner: City Officials failed to present evidence negating facts | Robart/City Officials: evidence shows no genuine issue | Appellate court held City Officials failed to meet initial Dresher burden; immunity not established |
| Whether the trial court properly applied Civ.R. 56 standards to immunity motion | Garner: there are genuine issues of material fact about immunity | City Officials: proper standard satisfied; no genuine issues | Court applied proper de novo standard; City Officials failed to meet evidentiary burden |
| Whether the issues on the merits (intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation) affect immunity ruling | Garner: merits should be considered for immunity defense | City Officials: immunity must be decided irrespective of merits | Merits not reviewable on immunity motion; immunity denied based on lack of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant must identify evidence showing absence of genuine issue of material fact)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7 (Ohio App.3d 1983) (summary judgment burden shifting; viewing evidence in light most favorable to non-moving party)
- Henkle v. Henkle, 75 Ohio App.3d 732 (Ohio App.3d 1991) (nonmoving party must present evidentiary material to show genuine dispute)
- Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2007) (finality of immunity orders under R.C. 2744.02(C))
- Budich v. Reece, 2008-Ohio-3630 (9th Dist. 2008) (denial of summary judgment is not generally a final appealable order)