Gilliam v. Crowe
2017 Ohio 5494
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Jan 1, 2015 Gilliam was in a single-car crash; power lines fell and his car was towed by Busy Bee while he remained inside; he was discovered roughly six hours later and hospitalized.
- Gilliam sued Deputy Brian Crowe, Sheriff Phil Plummer, and Busy Bee in state court alleging negligence, supervisory liability, and § 1983 claims; Crowe and Plummer removed to federal court.
- Federal court dismissed Busy Bee's negligence claim under the Iqbal plausibility standard and dismissed § 1983 claims against Crowe and Plummer; it remanded state-law claims and allowed Gilliam to seek leave to amend.
- On remand the common pleas court denied Gilliam leave to amend (finding amendments futile) and dismissed the state-law claims against Crowe and Plummer on grounds of immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- The appellate court reversed the denial of leave to amend as to Busy Bee (amendment not necessarily futile under Ohio’s notice-pleading standard) but affirmed dismissal of Crowe and Plummer in their individual capacities because the complaint lacked factual allegations showing recklessness required to overcome statutory immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend vs. futility | Gilliam: proposed amended complaint supplies sufficient factual allegations to state negligence claim against Busy Bee | Defendants: amended allegations still fail to show Busy Bee owed duty or had reason to know someone was inside; amendment is futile | Reversed: denial of leave to amend was error — under Ohio notice pleading the proposed amendments were not necessarily futile |
| Whether Busy Bee owed a duty to inspect to discover an occupant before towing | Gilliam: Busy Bee should have inspected; knowledge or constructive knowledge can be pleaded | Busy Bee: no recognized general duty for tow drivers to inspect vehicle interiors absent special facts | Held: Court found no controlling authority imposing a general duty; but amendment could potentially allege facts creating such a duty, so dismissal as futile improper |
| Whether Crowe is individually liable (immunity) for failing to locate plaintiff | Gilliam: Crowe acted negligently/grossly/recklessly in failing to find/provide care | Crowe: R.C. 2744.03 immunizes employee absent wanton/reckless conduct; complaint lacks facts of conscious disregard | Affirmed dismissal as to Crowe: allegations show at most negligence; no factual allegations of conscious disregard or obvious known risk to meet recklessness standard |
| Whether Sheriff Plummer is individually liable for supervisory/training failure | Gilliam: Plummer negligently failed to train/supervise, making him liable (respondeat superior and direct negligence) | Plummer: claims are conclusory, lack factual factual allegations about training, supervision, or control; immunity applies | Affirmed dismissal as to Plummer: complaint contains only conclusory allegations without facts to overcome immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to be plausible)
- Wallace v. Ohio Dep’t of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 (existence of duty depends on foreseeability; duty may arise from circumstances)
- O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (Ohio notice pleading standard; dismissal only if no set of facts entitles plaintiff to relief)
- Argabrite v. Neer, 149 Ohio St.3d 349 (statutory employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03; wanton/reckless standard applies to law enforcement)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (definition of reckless conduct for overcoming immunity)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (12(B)(6) standard: unsupported conclusions are not taken as admitted)