Miller v. Hace
2015 Ohio 3591
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- On Aug. 2, 2013, Officer Patrick Hace (Garfield Heights police) was driving northbound responding to a mutual-aid drug detail when his cruiser collided with Loren Miller’s vehicle turning left at Broadway & Miles in Garfield Heights. Miller and a passenger sued the city and Hace for negligence, recklessness/willful conduct, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- It is undisputed Hace was responding to an “emergency call” (drug detail) at the time; defendants asserted political-subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 and moved for summary judgment.
- Key factual dispute: which signal controlled Miller’s and Hace’s lanes (Miller alleged the officer ran a red; Hace and witnesses said he had a green). Reconstruction evidence suggested Broadway traffic (both directions) would have been released when Miles had a red.
- Plaintiffs’ evidence at best suggested negligence (conflicting statements about whether Miller had a green light or green arrow); there was no evidence of excessive speed (Hace ~30 mph in a 35 mph zone), poor visibility, or other aggravating conduct.
- The trial court denied summary judgment based on the disputed traffic-signal fact. The court of appeals reviewed de novo and reversed, holding plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue that Hace’s conduct was willful, wanton, or reckless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether political-subdivision immunity is defeated because the officer acted willfully, wantonly, or recklessly while responding to an emergency call | Miller: Hace ran a red light / entered intersection improperly, creating willful/wanton/reckless conduct | City/Hace: Officer was responding to an emergency call and there is no evidence of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct—at most negligence; immunity applies | Held for defendants: plaintiffs produced at most negligence evidence; no genuine issue that conduct was willful/wanton/reckless, so immunity applies |
| Whether the officer was responding to an "emergency call" for immunity purposes | Miller: did not dispute emergency-call status but argued liability nonetheless | Defendants: conceded officer was on an emergency call, which invokes statutory defense unless willful/wanton conduct shown | Held: Officer was on an emergency call; that status triggers the immunity framework |
| Standard required to impose individual liability on the officer | Miller: seeks to hold officer personally liable for negligent/ reckless driving | Defendants: under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) employee immunity shields officers unless acts were malicious, in bad faith, wanton or reckless | Held: Individual-employee standard is higher than ordinary negligence; plaintiffs failed to show wanton/reckless conduct, so officer immune in individual capacity |
| Whether IIED or intentional-tort claims survive against the city | Miller: asserted IIED claim based on officer’s conduct | Defendants: political subdivisions are immune from intentional torts | Held: IIED claim barred by political-subdivision immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215, 790 N.E.2d 781 (Ohio 2003) (definition of "emergency call" and holding that investigation of drug activity can be an emergency call)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380, 983 N.E.2d 266 (Ohio 2012) (definitions and distinctions among willful, wanton, and reckless conduct for employee immunity)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 70 Ohio St.3d 351, 639 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 1994) (discussing standards for wanton/reckless conduct and jury issues)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment de novo standard)
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185, 833 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio 2005) (appellate standard of review for summary judgment)