Hendrickson v. Haven Place, Inc.
2014 Ohio 3726
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Justin Hendrickson sued multiple defendants after a dog bite at a private residence, alleging negligence and, against Cuyahoga County employees Hope Gula and Demetria Chilton, wanton/reckless conduct and related vicarious liability claims against the County.
- Hendrickson alleged Chilton and Gula failed to supervise a private group home, placed him in a group home under investigation for unspecified safety violations, and acted "willfully, wantonly, and recklessly."
- Defendants (the County, Chilton, and Gula) moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), asserting political-subdivision and employee immunity under Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 2744; the trial court denied the motion except for dismissing CCDCFS and the county executive.
- Defendants appealed, arguing (1) the County is immune because children-services operations are governmental functions and no statute expressly removes immunity, and (2) Chilton and Gula are entitled to employee immunity because the complaint lacks factual allegations showing wanton, reckless, or malicious conduct.
- The appellate court reviewed the pleadings de novo, applying Ohio’s notice-pleading standard (Conley), rejecting federal heightened-pleading importations, but requiring more than bald conclusions.
- The court reversed the trial court: it held the County retained immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A) (no applicable R.C. 2744.02(B) exception), and Chilton and Gula were entitled to immunity because the complaint failed to plead facts supporting wanton/reckless conduct under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County is immune under R.C. Chapter 2744 | Hendrickson contends County can be liable for negligent entrustment/respondeat superior for employees' conduct | County argues children-services placement is a governmental function and no statute expressly removes immunity | County immune: operation of children-services is governmental; no R.C. 2744.02(B) exception applied; dismissal warranted |
| Whether Chilton and Gula lose employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) | Hendrickson claims their failure to supervise and allowing placement in a facility under investigation was wanton/reckless conduct | Chilton and Gula argue complaint lacks factual allegations showing wanton, reckless, or malicious conduct so immunity remains | Employees immune: pleadings contain only conclusory allegations; no factual nexus between alleged investigation/safety issues and the dog-bite injury; immunity not removed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 113 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio 2007) (explains three-tiered R.C. 2744 immunity framework)
- Rankin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 118 Ohio St.3d 392 (Ohio 2008) (children-services operations are governmental functions under R.C. 2744)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 2012) (definitions of willful, wanton, and reckless conduct governing immunity exceptions)
- Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 26 (Ohio 1982) (background: prior elimination of sovereign immunity leading to Chapter 2744)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (notice-pleading standard applied in Ohio for Civ.R. 12(B)(6))