2021 Ohio 3816
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Parma Heights hosted a free Summer Band concert at Greenbriar Commons; a portable dance floor was placed in a corner of a parking lot adjacent to a grassy seating area and gazebo.
- The city used removable wooden sawhorses to cordon the dance floor; the parking lot remained open for public parking.
- Attendee Donna Chidsey accidentally accelerated while backing her car, driving across the dance floor and into the grassy seating area; multiple attendees were injured and two (Gielas and McDonald) died.
- Gielas and McDonald (and others) sued the city alleging negligence and wanton/reckless conduct in planning/placement of the dance floor and barriers; the city moved for summary judgment asserting recreational and political-subdivision immunity under R.C. 1533.181 and R.C. Chapter 2744.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the court of appeals reversed, holding the city acted in a proprietary function but appellees failed to show wanton/reckless conduct or foreseeability to trigger the R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) exception; a dissent would have found triable issues on recklessness and foreseeability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hosting the summer concert is a "governmental" or "proprietary" function under R.C. 2744 | Concert-hosting is part of city operations and thus not entitled to immunity | Hosting a community concert is a proprietary function similar to private events | Court: Hosting the concert was a proprietary function (not a governmental duty) |
| Applicability of R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) (liability for negligent acts in proprietary functions) | City’s placement/layout decisions were negligent and rose to wanton/reckless conduct, so exception applies | Appellees cannot show wanton or reckless conduct; at most negligence | Court: Appellees failed to show wanton/reckless conduct; exception does not apply |
| Duty classification and foreseeability (invitee vs. licensee; foreseeability of errant vehicle) | Attendees were foreseeable protectees given crowd size, senior attendees, proximity to parking; city should have provided stronger barriers and planning | Attendees were licensees (no special duty); city had no reason to foresee a vehicle driving through sawhorses; prior concerts were incident-free | Court: Attendees were licensees; only duty to avoid wanton/reckless conduct; injury was not foreseeable as a matter of law |
| Applicability of recreational-user immunity (R.C. 1533.181) | Plaintiffs argued statute did not apply to this placement and event configuration | City argued recreational immunity protected it for use of public grounds | Court: Trial court’s denial on recreational-immunity was rendered moot by resolving political-subdivision immunity in city’s favor (appellate decision reversed trial court on R.C. 2744 grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- Elston v. Howland Local Schools, 865 N.E.2d 845 (Ohio 2007) (articulates three-step R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)
- Ryll v. Columbus Fireworks Display Co., 769 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio 2002) (sponsoring public entertainment can be a proprietary function)
- Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. Liming, 733 N.E.2d 1141 (Ohio 2000) (conducting events/exhibitions may be proprietary even on public grounds)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 983 N.E.2d 266 (Ohio 2012) (distinguishes wanton misconduct from recklessness; high standard for recklessness)
- Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 662 N.E.2d 287 (Ohio 1996) (classification of entrants and duties owed to licensees)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 639 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 1994) (recklessness requires more than negligence)