Jamison v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
2014 Ohio 4906
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Jamison volunteered at the Stark County Dog Pound to satisfy a college course requirement.
- During a training exercise, Jamison was bitten by a pit bull housed at the pound.
- She filed a multi-count complaint against the Board of Stark County Commissioners and dog warden personnel in 2013.
- Counts I and II sought declaratory judgments on R.C. 955.28(B) liability and potential immunity issues.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for some defendants, and later dismissed bad-faith-based Count III.
- The court ultimately affirmed summary judgment, holding immunities bar claims under R.C. 2744 and that R.C. 955.28(B) does not expressly impose liability on political subdivisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Board strictly liable under R.C. 955.28(B) despite sovereign immunity? | Jamison contends 955.28(B) imposes strict liability on keepers, regardless of immunity. | Board argues immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A) applies because keeping a dog is a governmental function. | Immunity applies; no strict liability against Board. |
| Does R.C. 955.28(B) create an express exception to sovereign immunity for employees under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c)? | Jamison asserts 955.28(B) expressly imposes liability on employees, triggering the exception. | Defendants contend 955.28(B) lacks express liability language for employees; the exception is not triggered. | No express imposition; employees immune. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckett v. Warren, 124 Ohio St.3d 256 (2010-Ohio-4) (strict liability under 955.28(B) eliminates knowledge requirement)
- Sikora v. Wenzel, 88 Ohio St.3d 493 (2000-Ohio-406) (strict liability defined; liability without fault)
- Hounshell v. American States Ins. Co., 67 Ohio St.2d 427 (1981) (summary judgment standard; de novo review standard of review)
- Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Browning-Ferris Inds. of Ohio, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 321 (1984) (material facts; general principles for summary judgment)
- R.H. Macy & Co. Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., 51 Ohio St.3d 108 (1990) (definition of proximate cause in summary judgment context)
- Wilson v. Kasichi, 134 Ohio St.3d 221 (2012-Ohio-5367) (statutory interpretation and application of interrelated statutes)
- Layman v. Woo, 78 Ohio St.3d 485 (1997) (ordinary meaning of statutory terms; interpretation)
- O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 (2008) (express imposition of liability; limitations on 2744.03(A)(6)(c))
- Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 113 Ohio St.3d 266 (2007-Ohio-1946) (express imposition required for 2744.03(A)(6)(c))
- Campbell v. Burton, 92 Ohio St.3d 336 (2001-Ohio-206) (interpretation of liability impositions)