2021 Ohio 1557
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- In 2009 the Martins bought a Payne, Ohio residence that had prior underdrains, clay field tiles, and an EverDry basement system installed by a previous owner.
- Soon after moving in they observed recurrent sump-pump cycling and rusty water from a nearby catch basin; they reported the problem to the Village of Payne.
- Over years the Martins excavated portions of the yard, capped tiles, had plumbing camera work and concrete repairs; Poggemeyer (hired after an EPA complaint) found a 6" tile conveying water under the slab but did not attribute the problem to Payne’s sewer system.
- Payne inspected, jetted, ran camera inspections, and performed a smoke test; Payne’s personnel and outside inspectors reported the village sewer lines were intact and identified likely on-property causes (clean-out, EverDry, possible cistern connections).
- The Martins sued Payne in 2019 claiming negligent maintenance of Payne’s sewer system caused water, sewer/gas smells, and health issues; Payne moved for summary judgment on sovereign-immunity grounds.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Payne for lack of evidence tying Payne’s sewer defects to the Martins’ harm; the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that Payne negligently performed its proprietary function (sewer maintenance) to overcome sovereign immunity. | Martins: camera video, smoke test, and fecal coliform show a damaged sewer and a village-caused leak; Payne lost inspection records and did not inspect all segments. | Payne: routine inspections, jetting, camera and smoke tests showed no defects; Martins offered no expert linking village sewer to damage; lay opinion insufficient. | Court: No genuine issue—Martins produced no professional evidence of a sewer defect or causation; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the Martins’ lay interpretation of video and other self-served assertions can defeat summary judgment absent corroborating expert evidence. | Martins: Allan Martin’s viewing shows visibly damaged clay tile and supports causation. | Payne: lay opinion cannot substitute for expert proof; only professionals said lines were intact. | Held: Lay, uncorroborated assertions inadequate to create a material factual dispute; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54 (2010) (summary-judgment standard under Civ.R. 56)
- M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 134 Ohio St.3d 65 (2012) (explaining de novo review and Civ.R. 56 requirements)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (foundational summary-judgment standard)
- Baker v. Wayne Cty., 147 Ohio St.3d 51 (2016) (three-tier sovereign-immunity framework under R.C. Chapter 2744)
- Rankin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 118 Ohio St.3d 392 (2008) (analysis of R.C. 2744 exceptions and immunity tiers)