2018 Ohio 341
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Sept. 18, 2013, Coitsville Officer Donald Dudley Jr. pursued a suspected stolen vehicle through residential streets, reaching speeds up to ~76 mph and crossing into Youngstown.
- Dudley lost sight of the suspects, did not use his enhanced "woofer" siren, was unfamiliar with the area, and entered an intersection on a red light while transmitting on the radio.
- Dudley’s cruiser collided with Renee McConnell’s car; she suffered severe injuries. State patrol estimated Dudley’s speed at ~37–41 mph at impact (posted limit 35 mph).
- McConnell sued Dudley (individually), Coitsville Police Department, Coitsville Township, and the Township Trustees for negligence, negligent hiring/training, and loss of consortium.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting political-subdivision immunity (R.C. 2744) and that the police department is not a suable entity; trial court denied summary judgment, finding genuine issues on willful/wanton conduct and training/supervision.
- On appeal the court: (1) held the police department’s lack of suability was waived and Coitsville Township is the proper defendant; (2) affirmed genuine fact issues as to township liability for training/supervision; (3) reversed as to Dudley’s individual liability because plaintiff did not plead an individual-capacity claim against him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coitsville Police Dept. is a suable entity | Named department is a proper defendant | Police department is not sui juris and cannot be sued | Dept.’s lack of capacity was waived; township is proper defendant (affirmed) |
| Whether Coitsville Township is immune under R.C. 2744 for vehicle operation during emergency response | McConnell: exceptions apply (negligent operation; failure to train/supervise) | Township: entitled to immunity; Dudley was responding to emergency and did not act willfully/wonton | Genuine issues of material fact exist as to willful/wanton conduct and training/supervision; immunity not resolved on summary judgment (affirmed) |
| Whether Dudley is personally immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) | McConnell: seeks recovery based on Dudley’s misconduct | Dudley: entitled to employee immunity absent wanton/malicious/bad-faith conduct | Reversed: plaintiff failed to plead an individual-capacity claim against Dudley; trial court erred in denying summary judgment on individual liability (reversed) |
| Whether facts rise to willful/wanton misconduct to strip immunity for vehicle operation exception | McConnell: high speeds, unfamiliar roads, red light entry, lack of enhanced siren, distracted by radio—may be wanton/willful | Defendants: conduct fits within emergency-run context and is not willful/wanton as a matter of law | Court: factual dispute exists (comparing Wagner/Adams); willful/wanton is for jury—summary judgment inappropriate (affirmed as to township liability) |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment using Civ.R. 56 standards)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (summary judgment standard; view evidence favorably to nonmovant)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden; nonmovant must show genuine issue)
- Rankin v. Cuyahoga County Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 118 Ohio St.3d 392 (Ohio 2008) (distinguishing negligence from wanton/willful/reckless conduct)
- Wagner v. Heavlin, 136 Ohio App.3d 719 (7th Dist. 2000) (facts supporting jury question on willful/wanton conduct in pursuit context)
- Argabrite v. Neer, 149 Ohio St.3d 349 (Ohio 2016) (Ohio Supreme Court held officers did not act willfully/wanton in pursuit; emphasizes consideration of pursuit policy, weather, traffic, and activation of lights/sirens)