LaMusga v. Summit Square Rehab, L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 6907
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2017Background
- Dant’e Price was shot and killed by two private security guards (Tarbert and Wissinger) employed at Summit Square Apartments; guards fired ~17 shots after Price attempted to leave while they pointed guns at his car.
- Guards worked for Ranger Security, LLC; Ranger’s owners were Ivan and Christina Burke, who also operated Tactical Solutions Group (TSG), a separate sole proprietorship that provided private-security weapons training and certification.
- Plaintiff LaMusga (administrator of Price’s estate) sued the Burkes and others asserting claims including negligent hiring/training/supervision and wrongful death; all other parties settled or were dismissed, leaving the Burkes individually.
- LaMusga alleged (1) the Burkes, via TSG, negligently trained the guards, creating a special employer–employee relationship and duty, and (2) the Burkes operated as a sole proprietorship (Ranger Security and Investigation) or otherwise should have their LLC veil pierced so they could be held personally liable.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Burkes; the appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed—finding (1) no employment/special relationship between TSG and the guards and (2) insufficient grounds to treat the Burkes as sole proprietors or to pierce Ranger Security, LLC’s corporate veil or otherwise impose personal tort liability on the Burkes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TSG (Burkes’ training business) owed a duty via an employer–employee/special relationship to Price (negligent training) | LaMusga: Ranger required guards to train at TSG, creating an employment nexus; TSG negligently trained on use of force and detention | Burkes: TSG only provided training to many students; guards were employed by Ranger Security, LLC; no special relationship or duty arising from training alone | Held: No. Record shows guards employed by Ranger Security, LLC and TSG merely trained them; no legal authority ties that link to a special relationship; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether TSG’s curriculum constituted improper training (educational malpractice vs. negligence) | LaMusga: Training on use of force/search/seizure was improper and proximately caused Price’s death | Burkes: Training followed Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission curriculum; instruction on force is authorized; claim is essentially barred as educational malpractice | Held: No genuine issue of fact that training was improper; curriculum included force/search/seizure per state standards; summary judgment for Burkes |
| Whether the Burkes operated as a sole proprietorship (Ranger Security and Investigation) or used a fictitious name so as to be personally liable | LaMusga: Contracts, checks, and account names used “Ranger Security and Investigation,” and failure to register fictitious name estops LLC shield | Burkes: Business was Ranger Security, LLC; occasional name variants/fillers do not convert corporate form; state licenses, payroll, insurance, and rosters were under LLC | Held: No. Evidence supports Ranger Security, LLC as employer and licensed entity; occasional name variations/failure to register a fictitious name do not convert the entity to a sole proprietorship |
| Whether the corporate veil should be pierced or an individual officer (Ivan Burke) held personally liable for negligent supervision | LaMusga: Evidence of commingling, lack of discipline for prior guard incidents, and Burke’s supervisory role justify veil piercing or Bowes-style officer tort liability | Burkes: Corporate formalities existed; no fraud/illegal acts/extreme misconduct; incidents did not show incompetence or illegal acts | Held: No. Plaintiff failed to prove Belvedere/Dombroski elements (complete control + fraud/illegal act + resulting unjust loss) or officer personal fault rising to required level; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (establishes duty/breach/causation elements in negligence)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (summary-judgment standard)
- Fed. Steel & Wire Corp. v. Ruhlin Const. Co., 45 Ohio St.3d 171 (no duty to control third person absent special relationship)
- Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hosp. & Health Ctr., 39 Ohio St.3d 86 (definition of special relation when one takes charge of a person likely to cause harm)
- Simpson v. Big Bear Stores Co., 73 Ohio St.3d 130 (business owner–invitee special relationship)
- Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 274 (standards for piercing corporate veil)
- Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc., 119 Ohio St.3d 506 (limits and refines second prong for veil piercing; requires fraud/illegal or similarly unlawful act)
- Zimmerman v. Eagle Mtg. Corp., 110 Ohio App.3d 762 (burden on party seeking to pierce veil)
- Bowes v. Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum, Inc., 12 Ohio App.3d 12 (corporate officer can be individually liable for tort when duty delegated and breached by officer’s personal fault)