Ivory v. Austintown Twp.
2011 Ohio 3171
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Ivory owns a single-story Austintown home; a basement-level garage and living space are affected by flooding.
- On June 24, 2006, heavy rains caused surface water to flood Ivory's property through an open drainage ditch nearby.
- Two weeks before the storm, Austintown replaced the ditch with a pipe and catch basin; Ivory claims the redesign failed to handle the rain, causing flooding.
- Ivory sued Austintown for negligently maintaining its sewers; Austintown moved for summary judgment on immunity grounds.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding Austintown immune under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) with none of the statutory exceptions applying.
- The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Austintown was immune because the actions involved a governmental function and the exceptions did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Austintown is immune from suit under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) regardless of alleged negligence. | Ivory argued exceptions under (B)(2) or (B)(3) negate immunity. | Austintown contends the actions were governmental, not proprietary, and the public-road exception does not apply. | Immunity upheld; neither (B)(2) nor (B)(3) applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cater v. City of Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998) (three-tier immunity framework for political subdivisions)
- Parenti v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 826 (1990) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Essman v. Portsmouth, 2010-Ohio-4837 (2010) (guidelines for distinguishing governmental vs. proprietary sewer functions)
- Neudecker v. Butler Cty. Engineer's Office, 146 Ohio App.3d 614 (2001) (catch basins not part of traveled street often not a public road)
- Wooten v. CSX R.R., 164 Ohio App.3d 428 (2005) (narrow application of public road exception to immunity)