Makowski v. Kohler
2011 Ohio 2382
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Makowski v. Kohler, Ninth District Court of Appeals, Summit County, Ohio, involved a Cleveland Metroparks immunity defense after a collision at a hilltop intersection.
- Nov. 20, 2006: Platz’s vehicle braking near the Hinckley area; Kohler attempted to pass a truck/trailer; Makowskis’ vehicle approached the intersection and was struck head-on.
- Plaintiffs alleged negligence against Kohler and several entities; added Special Touch of Northeast Ohio, Inc. and later a health insurer; substituted Cleveland Metroparks for Platz; dismissals and amendments followed.
- Cleveland Metroparks moved for summary judgment arguing statute of limitations, immunity, and lack of proximate causation; trial court denied in part.
- Court of Appeals reviewed two assignments of error; one on immunity (denied) and one on statute of limitations (dismissed as final appeal).
- Judgment: part affirmed (immunity issue with genuine factual disputes preserved), part dismissed (statute-of-limitations issue), and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunity under 2744.02(B) depends on Platz’s negligence | Makowski contends Platz’s failure to signal and conduct contributed to the collision, defeating immunity | Metroparks asserts immunity unless a statutory exception applies and argues no triable issue of Platz’s negligence | Genuine issues of material fact exist, so immunity not established as a matter of law. |
| Whether the claims are barred by the statute of limitations under 2744.04 | Makowski argues claims were timely | Metroparks contends claims are time-barred | Assignment dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the denial of summary judgment on immunity remains the appeal focus. |
| Whether Kohler’s and Platz’s actions were proximate causes or superseding events | Plaintiffs argue Platz’s conduct contributed to foreseeability of injury | Metroparks contends any intervening acts break liability chain or are superseding | Fact-specific analysis; court found material facts exist for proximate cause and intervening acts, precluding summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cater v. City of Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 1998) (three-tier immunity analysis for political subdivisions)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden-shifting for summary judgment)
- Hubbell v. City of Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2007) (finality of immunity-denial orders; appellate review scope)
- Essman v. City of Portsmouth, 2009-Ohio-3367 (Ohio 4th Dist.) (finality and scope of appeals from immunity rulings)
- Queen City Terminals, Inc. v. Gen. Am. Transp. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 609 (Ohio 1995) (foreseeability and intervening causation in proximate cause analysis)
- Leibreich v. A.J. Refrigeration, Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio 1993) (intervening cause must be new and independent to break chain of causation)
- Leibreich (cited in context), - (-) (concept of concurrent causation in negligence)
- Queen City Terminals, Inc. (cited), - (-) (interpretation of foreseeability in proximate causation)
- Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 2006) (elements of negligence and duty)
- Willoughby Hills v. Bd. of Park Commrs. of Cleveland Metro. Park Dist., 3 Ohio St.2d 49 (Ohio 1965) (statutory immunity framework for park districts)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)