Kearns v. Meigs Cty. Emergency Med. Servs.
88 N.E.3d 438
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- March 23, 2013: Meigs County EMS ambulance driven by Alfred Lyons collided head‑on with the Kearnss’ vehicle on two‑lane State Route 7 in Cheshire; Kearns plaintiffs injured.
- Lyons had responded to a call and was transporting a patient without lights/sirens engaged.
- Eyewitness affidavits and Kearns’ testimony say Lyons crossed the double yellow to pass a vehicle in a no‑passing zone; Lyons denied attempting to pass and could not recall moments before impact.
- Accident reconstructionist opined Lyons traveled 55–58 mph in a 35 mph zone and made an abrupt lane change into opposing traffic.
- Plaintiffs sued for negligence and willful/wanton (later amended to add reckless) misconduct; defendants (Lyons, Meigs County EMS, Meigs County Commissioners) moved for summary judgment invoking R.C. Chapter 2744 immunity defenses.
- Trial court denied defendants’ summary judgment as to wanton misconduct (precluding statutory immunity); this appeal affirmed that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a genuine issue exists that Lyons acted wantonly (precluding R.C. 2744 immunity for political subdivision) | Kearns: evidence (reconstruction, eyewitnesses, speed, abrupt lane change, no lights/sirens) supports wantonness. | Defendants: record insufficient for reasonable jury to find wanton conduct; entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744. | Affirmed denial of summary judgment — genuine factual dispute as to wanton misconduct exists. |
| Whether Lyons (individual employee) is entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) (wanton/reckless exception) | Kearns: same facts show wanton/reckless conduct, so employee immunity not available. | Lyons: argues no wanton/reckless conduct; entitled to immunity. | Denied at summary judgment — material fact dispute on wantonness prevents immunity determination. |
| Whether the trial court should decide immunity as a matter of law at summary judgment | Kearns: factual disputes make summary judgment inappropriate. | Defendants: immunity is a question of law; court should grant summary judgment per Conley. | Majority: resolved facts in plaintiff’s favor and found dispute; declined to decide recklessness not pleaded below. Dissent argued immunity is a legal question for the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (2012) (defines "wanton misconduct" as failure to exercise any care when there is great probability harm will result)
- Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 (2011) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Conley v. Shearer, 64 Ohio St.3d 284 (1992) (question of governmental‑employee immunity is a question of law for the court)
- Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (noting immunity determinations may, in some circumstances, involve genuine factual disputes that preclude summary judgment)