2018 Ohio 3099
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (McConnell et al.) sued Coitsville Township/Police and Officer Donald C. Dudley, Jr. after a crash, alleging willful and wanton conduct and asserting negligent hiring/training allegations.
- Trial-court record produced a summary-judgment/dispositive ruling that prompted appeal; this court issued an opinion (7th Dist. No. 17 MA 0045) addressing R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) immunity issues.
- Appellants (Dudley and governmental defendants) moved to certify a conflict under Ohio Const., Art. IV, §3(B)(4), arguing the 7th District’s decision conflicts with Eighth and Tenth District decisions holding negligent hiring/training is not an independent cause of action under R.C. 2744.02(B).
- The 7th District explained plaintiffs did not plead negligent hiring/training as an independent claim but used such allegations to defeat political-subdivision immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) by showing willful and wanton misconduct or negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
- The court analyzed prior 7th District precedent (Wagner; Adams) and relevant Ohio Supreme Court authority on certification (Whitelock) to assess whether an actual inter-district conflict exists.
- The court denied the motion to certify a conflict, concluding no actual conflict: the challenged cases uniformly hold negligent hiring/training are not independent causes of action but may be relevant evidence for R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent hiring/training can be an independent cause of action against a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.02(B) | McConnell: negligent hiring/training allegations are not advanced as standalone claims but as evidence to show willful/wanton conduct and negligent operation to strip immunity | Dudley: Eighth and Tenth District decisions hold negligent hiring/training cannot be an independent cause of action; thus 7th Dist. erred | Held: Negligent hiring/training is not an independent cause of action but may be used as evidence in an R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) analysis to show willful/wanton or negligent operation; plaintiffs’ pleading was treated accordingly |
| Whether this decision conflicts with other appellate districts sufficient to certify to Ohio Supreme Court | McConnell: no conflict because 7th Dist. treated negligent hiring/training as evidentiary, consistent with 7th Dist. precedent | Dudley: asserted conflict with Eighth and Tenth Districts that require certification | Held: No actual conflict under Whitelock; motion to certify conflict denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Heavlin, 136 Ohio App.3d 719 (7th Dist.) (negligent hiring/training not an independent claim but admissible to show willful/wanton conduct under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1))
- McCloud v. Nimmer, 72 Ohio App.3d 533 (8th Dist.) (addresses negligent entrustment/failure to train claims against political subdivisions)
- Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 594 (Ohio 1993) (sets standards for when inter-district conflicts justify certification to the Ohio Supreme Court)