Nelson v. Cleveland
2013 Ohio 493
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Nelson sued the City of Cleveland for injuries from a large standing-water puddle on Shoreway near Edgewater Park after June 29, 2008.
- The City moved for summary judgment claiming sovereign immunity under R.C. 2744.02.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding neither 2744.02(B)(2) nor (B)(3) applied.
- Nelson argued 2744.02(B)(2) (proprietary function maintenance) and evidence from an expert suggested negligent drainage maintenance.
- Nelson claimed the standing water resulted from the City’s failure to maintain catch basins and sewer drainage; the City contends it regularly cleans catch basins.
- Appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact and analyzing the applicability of 2744.02(B)(2) and the obstruction concept under 2744.02(B)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 2744.02(B)(2) negate immunity due to proprietary-function maintenance by the City? | Nelson asserts the City negligently maintains its sewer system, a proprietary function. | City contends no factual basis shows negligent maintenance and the function is not proven negligent. | Yes, 2744.02(B)(2) applies; genuine issues of material fact remain. |
| Is standing water on the roadway an 'obstruction' under 2744.02(B)(3) to defeat immunity? | Nelson argues water accumulation constitutes an obstruction. | City argues standing water is not an obstruction as defined by Howard I. | No, standing water here is not an obstruction; 2744.02(B)(3) does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Miami Twp. Fire Div., 119 Ohio St.3d 1 (2008-Ohio-2792) (obstruction definition narrowed; ice on roadway not an obstruction per Howard I)
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 (2003-Ohio-3319) (three-tier immunity analysis for political subdivisions)