Iannuzzi v. Harris
2011 Ohio 3185
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Deputy Eric W. Harris was on traffic patrol on Route 224 in Canfield Township, Mahoning County, monitoring speed with radar from a Westford Place office complex.
- He clocked a vehicle traveling eastbound at 59 mph in a 45 mph zone and activated his lights as he pulled onto Route 224.
- The collision occurred when the pursuing police vehicle was struck by Celeste Iannuzzi’s vehicle in the second eastbound lane.
- Iannuzzi sued Harris and the Mahoning County Sheriff for negligence; immunity defenses under R.C. Chapter 2744 were raised.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, the defendants appealed, and the appellate court reviews de novo, focusing on immunity rules for political subdivisions.
- The court ultimately held there are genuine issues of material fact on whether Harris was responding to a call to duty, reversing in part to grant Harris summary judgment on immunity, and affirming on Wellington’s immunity denial
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris was immune under 2744.02(B)(1)(a) as responding to an emergency call | Iannuzzi argues no clear emergency call; genuine issue on pursuit existence | Harris/Wellington contend pursuit constitutes an emergency call under 2744.02(B)(1)(a) | Not entitled to summary judgment on this factor; genuine issue of material fact exists |
| Whether Harris is immune under 2744.03(A)(6) given the complaint did not allege malice or wanton conduct | Iannuzzi did not plead malice or bad faith; thus immunity not waived | Harris entitled to immunity unless malice, bad faith, or outside scope shown | Harris is entitled to immunity under 2744.03(A)(6); trial court’s denial reversed as to Harris; Wellington’s immunity affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbell v. City of Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007-Ohio-4839) (final, appealable order when immunity denial under 2744.02 is involved)
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 (2003-Ohio-3319) (emergency call defined as response required by professional obligation)
- Elston v. Howland Local Schools, 113 Ohio St.3d 314 (2007-Ohio-2070) (pleadings must allege malice/bad faith to defeat immunity on summary judgment)
- Smith v. Martin, 176 Ohio App.3d 567 (2008-Ohio-2978) (cases require specific allegations of malice or reckless conduct to defeat immunity)
- Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Digioia-Suburban Excavating, L.L.C., 8th Dist. Nos. 89708, 89907 (2008-Ohio-1409) (pleading must establish conduct evidencing malice or bad faith to overcome immunity)