Granato v. Davis
2014 Ohio 5572
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Plane crash in Union County, Ohio (Mar. 5, 2010) led to morgue identification issues for Granato and Potter.
- Montgomery County Coroner’s Office (MCC) identified bodies; autopsies and identifications occurred at MCC in Dayton.
- Discrepancies arose: Potter’s jacket with Granato’s body; Granato’s missing jacket; concerns about proper identification during autopsy.
- Odontologist’s dentalID report identified Granato as Potter’s body and vice versa; report was not adequately acted upon.
- Bodies were released to families before confirming fingerprints or completing proper identity verification.
- Granato sued Shott (among others) alleging statutory and constitutional rights violations; trial court denied summary judgment on immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recklessness defeats RC 2744.03(A)(6) immunity. | Granato contends recklessness removed immunity. | Shott argues no recklessness; standard neg. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on immunity. |
| Whether Shott is entitled to 42 U.S.C. 1983 qualified immunity. | Granato asserts a protected property right; rights were clearly established. | Shott argues no clearly established right; conduct not conscience-shocking. | Qualified immunity not clearly established; reversed in part, remanded? (court held Shott not liable under 1983; judgment reversed in part.) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477 (6th Cir.1991) (recognition of decedent's next-of-kin rights and related constitutional interest)
- Albrecht v. Treon, 118 Ohio St.3d 348 (2008) (Ohio Supreme Court held next of kin have no protected property right in autopsy tissues under state law; due process analysis proceeds on substance)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (post-deprivation remedies can validate state action’s lawfulness when predeprivation process is impracticable)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (negligent deprivations do not violate due process if post-deprivation remedies exist)
- Range v. Douglas, 763 F.3d 589 (6th Cir.2014) (deliberate indifference standards for substantive due process in complex factual contexts)