2019 Ohio 4740
Ohio2019Background
- On Sept. 18, 2013, Coitsville Township Police Officer Donald Dudley pursued a suspected stolen vehicle at high speed and collided with Renee McConnell’s car at an intersection, seriously injuring her.
- McConnells sued Officer Dudley and the township, alleging negligent operation of the cruiser and that the township negligently hired, trained, and supervised Dudley (pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2744 causes of action and loss-of-consortium claims).
- The trial court denied summary judgment, finding genuine issues whether Dudley’s conduct was wanton/wanton misconduct (which would defeat the emergency-call defense) and whether the township was negligent in hiring/training/supervising.
- The Seventh District affirmed in part, treating evidence of negligent hiring/training as relevant to wanton/wanton misconduct and thus to the township’s liability under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1).
- The Supreme Court accepted review of the narrow question whether the R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) negligent-vehicle-operation exception extends to independent claims of negligent hiring, training, or supervision and reversed the court of appeals.
- Holding: R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) applies to negligent operation (i.e., driving/causing movement) by an employee, not to a political subdivision’s alleged negligent hiring, training, or supervision; the township was entitled to summary judgment on that theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) (exception to political-subdivision immunity for negligent operation of a motor vehicle) encompasses claims that the subdivision negligently hired, trained, or supervised a police officer who later caused an accident. | McConnell: township’s pre-pursuit negligence in hiring/training directly caused the cruiser’s negligent operation and thus fits within R.C. 2744.02(B)(1); emergency-call defense should not apply to the subdivision’s prior conduct. | Township (Dudley): “operation” means actual driving/causing vehicle movement; negligent hiring/training/supervision is not negligent operation and thus not within R.C. 2744.02(B)(1). | Court: Statute is plain—R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) covers negligent operation by employees (driving); it does not create an independent cause of action for negligent hiring, training, or supervision against a political subdivision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sears v. Weimer, 55 N.E.2d 413 (statutory language that is plain and unambiguous must be applied)
- Doe v. Marlington Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 907 N.E.2d 706 ("operation" of a vehicle pertains to driving/causing movement)
- Pelletier v. Campbell, 109 N.E.3d 1210 (standard for reviewing political-subdivision immunity on summary judgment)
- Riffle v. Physicians & Surgeons Ambulance Serv., Inc., 986 N.E.2d 983 (discussion of R.C. 2744 exceptions and defenses)
- Smith v. McBride, 955 N.E.2d 954 (definition and scope of police-response emergency-call defense)
- Menefee v. Queen City Metro, 550 N.E.2d 181 (legislative purpose of limiting political-subdivision liability)
- Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Smyth, 721 N.E.2d 1057 (when statutory language is unambiguous, apply it rather than interpret)