Johnson v. City of Cleveland
956 N.E.2d 355
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- On November 18, 2007, 9-1-1 was called for PCP ingestion at 241 East 156th Street, Cleveland.
- EMTs Stosak (paramedic) and McArthur (EMT-basic) responded; police were dispatched to the scene.
- Johnson walked away after the EMS arrived; Gabriel indicated he appeared calm and did not seem to need transport.
- Captain Renee O’Neill authorized a non-transport as a ‘refusal special circumstance’ after consulting with the EMTs.
- Approximately 21 minutes on scene, EMS left; about 11 minutes later Johnson jumped from a second-story porch and was severely injured.
- Johnson sued the city and EMS personnel; the trial court denied summary judgment on immunity grounds, and the appellate court reversed in favor of the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunity under RC 4765.49 and 2744.02 | Johnson argues immunity does not apply due to willful/wanton conduct. | Defendants assert immunity applies unless willful or wanton misconduct is shown. | Immunity applies; no willful or wanton conduct shown. |
| Willful or wanton misconduct standard | Johnson contends the EMS actions breached the standard of care with willful/wanton conduct. | Defendants contend the record does not establish willful or wanton misconduct. | Record does not support willful or wanton misconduct. |
| Cross-appeal on denial of motion to strike expert affidavit | Johnson argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying the strike of the experts’ affidavit. | Defendants argue the court properly denied the strike. | No abuse; error, if any, harmless; cross-appeal overruled. |
| Constitutionality of immunity provisions | Challenge to RC 2744 immunities as unconstitutional. | Immunity provisions are constitutional and valid. | Constitutionality upheld; does not defeat immunity here. |
| Negligent hiring/retention/supervision under immunity | Claims of negligent hiring/retention/supervision fall outside immunity. | Discretionary acts fall within immunity; no exception applies. | City entitled to immunity for negligent hiring/retention/supervision; exceptions do not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007-Ohio-4839) (final, appealable order denying immunity; establishes jurisdiction for review)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (willful vs. wanton standard; high burden for wanton misconduct)
- Fuson v. Cincinnati, 91 Ohio App.3d 734 (1993-Ohio-612) (reconciling RC 4765.49 with 2744 immunity; willful/wanton analysis applicable)
- Denham v. New Carlisle, 138 Ohio App.3d 439 (2000-Ohio-439) (no willful or wanton misconduct where evidence insufficient)
- O'Toole v. Denihan, 2008-Ohio-2574 (118 Ohio St.3d 374) (upholds constitutionality of RC Chapter 2744 immunity framework)
- Fahnbulleh v. Strahan, 73 Ohio St.3d 666 (1995-Ohio-) (constitutional considerations of immunity provisions)