Hadley v. Figley
46 N.E.3d 1129
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- On December 21, 2009, Marshall Figley, while turning left in a pickup truck, struck and killed pedestrian Suzanne Claftin.
- On February 12, 2013, Hadley (administrator of Claftin’s estate) sued Figley, Antiques on Main Enterprises, LLC, and the City of Ashland for wrongful death and alleged causes including negligent vehicle operation, a sidewalk obstruction, and the city’s failure to keep sidewalks free from nuisance.
- The City moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), asserting governmental immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- Plaintiff argued the City’s charter (Sections 1 and 102) created a duty and waived immunity because it provides the Council shall keep sidewalks "open, in repair and free from nuisance" and the City "may sue and be sued."
- Trial court granted the City’s motion, holding the charter did not impose civil liability or waive immunity; the remaining claims against private defendants were resolved.
- Plaintiff appealed; the appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal, rejecting both the charter-waiver and home-rule arguments (the latter not raised below and thus waived).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City waived R.C. 2744 immunity via its charter language (Sections 1 and 102) | Hadley: Charter "may sue and be sued" plus Section 102 duty to keep sidewalks free from nuisance effectively waive immunity and impose civil liability | City: Charter does not expressly impose civil liability; R.C. 2744 controls and protects the City unless a statute expressly imposes liability | Held: No waiver; charter language does not expressly create civil liability and City is immune under R.C. Chapter 2744 |
| Whether the charter/home-rule amendment supersedes R.C. Chapter 2744 and creates a private right of action | Hadley: Home-rule and charter duty preempt R.C. 2744, creating enforceable duty to keep sidewalks safe | City: Argument not raised below; R.C. 2744 governs and plaintiff waived the home-rule issue by failing to raise it in trial court | Held: Not addressed on merits — plaintiff waived the argument by failing to raise it below; appeal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228 (Ohio 1990) (sets de novo standard for reviewing Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1991) (pleading-stage inferences must favor nonmoving party)
- Greene Cty. Agric. Soc. v. Liming, 89 Ohio St.3d 551 (Ohio 2000) (describes three-tier R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (Ohio 1992) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) tests complaint sufficiency)
- Horton v. City of Dayton, 53 Ohio App.3d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988) (charter language "may sue and be sued" does not, by itself, constitute a knowing waiver of sovereign immunity)