Glover v. Columbus, 2018 Ohio 4743

In Feb 2014 the City of Columbus began a capital improvements project to replace ~10,650 feet of water mains/lines in a neighborhood; contractor Darby Creek performed construction from Mar 2014–Apr 2015.
On Feb 18, 2015 Barbara Glover fell into a hole/large pothole partially filled with gravel and covered by snow outside her home and was injured.
Plaintiffs sued the City and Darby Creek alleging the hole was created by work on the water/sewer project.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Darby Creek but denied the City’s summary judgment motion, concluding the project was a proprietary function (maintenance of a water system) and thus the City was not immune under R.C. Chapter 2744.
The City appealed the denial of immunity under R.C. 2744.02(C); the appellate court considered whether replacement of water mains is a governmental (immune) or proprietary (non-immune) function.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City is immune under R.C. Chapter 2744 for injuries caused during the waterline project	Glover: Project was proprietary (establishment/maintenance/operation of a municipal water system), so R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) exception applies and City is liable	City: Project was construction/reconstruction of a public improvement (water mains) — a governmental function under R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(l) — so immunity applies	Held: Project was construction/reconstruction (an upgrade), thus a governmental function; City immune under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1); trial court reversed

Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (establishes Civ.R. 56 burden-shifting framework)
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (confirms de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
Coleman v. Portage Cty. Engineer, 133 Ohio St.3d 28 (holding that upgrades requiring redesign/reconstruction are governmental functions)
Smith v. Stormwater Management Div., 111 Ohio App.3d 502 (discusses governmental/proprietary distinctions for municipal utility projects)