2020 Ohio 5467
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Minster contracted with Helms & Sons to reconstruct Second Street and adjacent sewer/water systems; CTL Engineering was hired to oversee the work.
- During construction Helms found an unmapped, "abandoned sewer line;" Minster instructed Helms to remove ("destroy") it.
- Helms built a trench box to block canal water; after heavy rain the trench box allegedly failed, flooding a lift station and causing sewage to inundate several homeowners' properties.
- Homeowners (Goebel et al.) sued Minster and Helms for negligence (relying on R.C. 2744.01(G)(2)(d) — destruction/maintenance of a sewer system as a proprietary function) and for breach of contract as third-party beneficiaries.
- Minster moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) asserting sovereign immunity (R.C. 2744.02) and, alternatively, reinstatement of immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) because plaintiffs did not allege malice/bad faith/wantonness/recklessness; the trial court denied dismissal as to negligence (but dismissed the breach claim).
- The Third District affirmed: on the complaint face Minster's instruction to remove the line plausibly fell within a proprietary "destruction" exception to immunity and the complaint alleged facts that could show recklessness precluding reinstatement of immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minster's conduct was governmental (immune) or proprietary (exception) under R.C. 2744 | Goebel: Minster instructed removal of the abandoned line, which is a proprietary "destruction/maintenance" of a sewer system under R.C. 2744.01(G)(2)(d). | Minster: Work was part of a street/sewer reconstruction (a governmental function); removal during that project does not convert it to proprietary. | Court: Allegations (Minster directed removal of an unexpected line) plausibly fall within the proprietary "destruction" definition; complaint survives 12(B)(6). |
| Whether removal of a single abandoned line qualifies as "destruction of a sewer system" under R.C. 2744.01(G)(2)(d) | Goebel: The complaint pleads removal/destruction of an abandoned sewer line; the statute's language covers such conduct. | Minster: A single line during reconstruction is not the same as destruction of a sewer system; statutory context makes reconstruction governmental. | Court: On the face of the complaint the term can cover the alleged acts; cannot assume the line was trivial—plausible that removal falls within the statutory "destruction." |
| Whether immunity is restored under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) because Minster's actions were discretionary and plaintiffs alleged no malice/bad faith/wantonness/recklessness | Goebel: Complaint alleges facts that, if proven, show conscious disregard or indifference to obvious risk (recklessness). | Minster: Decision to use/install a trench box was discretionary use of equipment and plaintiffs did not plead malice/bad faith/wantonness/recklessness, so immunity should be reinstated. | Court: Allegations could support a finding of recklessness (conscious disregard); therefore immunity not reinstated at the dismissal stage. |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a breach-of-contract claim as third-party beneficiaries | Goebel: Contract language and project context create third-party beneficiary rights. | Minster: Contract does not manifest intent to confer third-party beneficiary status on homeowners. | Court: Trial court correctly dismissed breach claim—contract lacks clear intent to confer third-party beneficiary status. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal standard; plaintiff can recover if any set of facts consistent with complaint entitles recovery)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (1992) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) tests only legal sufficiency of the complaint)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (court must accept complaint allegations as true and draw inferences for plaintiff on a 12(B)(6) motion)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (if any set of facts consistent with complaint allows recovery, dismissal improper)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (2012) (recklessness defined as conscious disregard or indifference to an obvious risk of harm)
- City of Salem v. Harding, 121 Ohio St. 412 (1929) (distinguishes construction/reconstruction as governmental from maintenance/destruction as potentially creating liability)