Hignett v. Schwarz
2011 Ohio 3252
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Hignett was injured when he fell from the bed of a utility vehicle being driven over motocross moguls at the Lorain County Fair around 2:30–3:00 a.m.
- The vehicle was driven by Tom Denes, a fair director; Kelly Schwarz was a passenger and driver on at least one trip, with Hignett and others in the bed.
- Hignett sued Denes, Schwarz, the Lorain County Agricultural Society (the Society), and a fair director for negligence.
- The Society moved for summary judgment claiming blanket immunity under RC 2744.02(A)(1); the trial court denied the motion.
- The central issue is whether the Society is immune from liability under Ohio tort immunity statutes given the alleged negligent acts related to the use of its equipment and supervision.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact about whether Denes operated/controlled a public stadium and whether the conduct fell within an exception to immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Society is entitled to blanket immunity under RC 2744.02(A)(1). | Hignett argues 2744.02(B) applies due to proprietary function. | Society contends blanket immunity applies under 2744.02(A)(1). | Immunity not established as a matter of law; genuine issues remain. |
| Whether Denes’ conduct falls within 2744.02(B)(2) as a proprietary function via operation/control of a public stadium. | Hignett asserts operation/control of the stadium makes it proprietary. | Society contends the activity does not qualify as proprietary. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on this point. |
| Whether Denes’s conduct constitutes negligent entrustment and/or admission of intoxication affecting duty of care. | Hignett argues Denes knew Schwarz was intoxicated and negligently entrusted the vehicle. | Society argues lack of evidence that Denes was negligent in his duties or that entrustment occurred within scope of employment. | Genuine issues of material fact; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Whether the allegedly non-employees’ use of the Society’s equipment occurred within the scope of employment or as a discretionary decision by an employee. | Denes permitted non-employees to operate the vehicle; this implicates employment scope and authority. | Society argues there is no evidence Denes acted within scope or authority. | Genuine issues of material fact; immunity not conclusively established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulla v. Straus, 154 Ohio St. 193 (1950) (entrustment and driver incompetence standards in motor-vehicle liability)
- Williamson v. Eclipse Motor Lines Inc., 145 Ohio St. 467 (1945) (intoxication as a factor in driver incompetence and owner liability)
- Mastran v. Urichich, 37 Ohio St.3d 44 (1988) (owner liability for negligent entrustment requires duty and knowledge of incompetence)
- Shalkhauser v. Medina, 148 Ohio App.3d 41 (2002) (framework for assessing immunity and exceptions under RC 2744.02)
- Greene County Agric. Soc. v. Liming, 89 Ohio St.3d 551 (2000) (distinguishing governmental vs. proprietary functions for immunity analysis)