Moore v. Cleveland
2017 Ohio 1156
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- December 8–10, 2008: Gladys Wade reported that Anthony Sowell attacked her; Sowell was arrested for suspected kidnapping, robbery and attempted rape, and officers prepared an incident report describing physical evidence found at Sowell’s residence.
- The case was assigned to Detective Georgia Hussein (Sex Crimes Unit); Hussein interviewed Wade and Sowell, spoke with some witnesses, requested crime-scene photos be taken, but did not obtain a search warrant, review crime-scene photos, interview the arresting officers, or present physical evidence to the prosecutor.
- Hussein presented the prosecutor only with the incident report, statements of Wade and Sowell, her assessment of Wade’s credibility, and a robbery affidavit; the prosecutor declined to file charges and Sowell was released.
- In October 2009 police executed a warrant at Sowell’s residence and discovered human remains; Sowell was later convicted of multiple murders and sexual offenses.
- Plaintiffs sued the officers (Hussein, Rayburn, Lt. Baumiller, Sgt. McMahan) alleging gross negligence, wanton/reckless conduct, and negligent infliction of emotional distress for releasing Sowell; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants; the appellate court affirmed for Rayburn, Baumiller, and McMahan but reversed as to Hussein, holding that genuine issues of fact existed whether Hussein acted recklessly and thus immunity was not appropriate at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers are immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) | Officers acted with wanton/reckless conduct in releasing Sowell; immunity should be denied | Statutory immunity applies unless officer acted with malicious purpose, bad faith, or wanton/reckless conduct; no such conduct here | Immunity denied as to Det. Hussein (genuine issue re: recklessness); immunity affirmed for Rayburn, Baumiller, McMahan |
| Role of traditional tort "duty" in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) analysis | Duty concepts (foreseeability, special relationship) should inform immunity analysis | Immunity analysis is statutory and does not depend on creation of new common-law duties | Court declined to incorporate traditional duty analysis into the immunity inquiry; applied statutory standard only |
| Sufficiency of investigative conduct to show wanton/reckless behavior | Hussein’s failure to review scene evidence, interview arresting officers, present material evidence, and inform prosecutor of known sex-offender status showed a perverse disregard of risk | Actions amounted to negligent or poor investigative choices, not recklessness or wantonness | For Hussein, evidence could permit a reasonable juror to find recklessness; for others (Rayburn, supervisors) record showed at most negligence, so immunity applies |
| Supervisor/liability for review/supervision failures (Baumiller, McMahan) | Failure to supervise/review investigation warrants denial of immunity | Supervisory acts were limited and any lapse was negligent, not reckless or malicious | Summary judgment affirmed for supervisors: evidence did not support wanton/reckless conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Graves v. Circleville, 124 Ohio St.3d 339 (Ohio 2010) (absence of public-duty rule does not automatically create new duties under R.C. 2744)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 2012) (definitions of wanton misconduct and reckless conduct under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b))
- O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 (Ohio 2008) (recklessness requires conscious disregard and is distinct from negligence)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 70 Ohio St.3d 351 (Ohio 1994) (malicious purpose and bad faith definitions; factual question of malicious/bad-faith conduct)
- Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio 2002) (traditional tort duty concepts, foreseeability, and special-relationship doctrine)
- Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hosp. & Health Ctr., 39 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 1988) (no duty to control third-party conduct absent special relationship)