2013 Ohio 3849
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Michael Nihiser and Vicki Devol (rural landowners in Hocking County) sued Hocking County Board of Commissioners and County Engineer William Shaw after Shaw’s office delayed or refused assigning street/building numbers for plaintiffs’ lots and required a driveway before issuing an address.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Board improperly delegated its statutory authority under R.C. 303.021 to the County Engineer and that Shaw imposed an extra-statutory driveway requirement, causing alleged property-value loss (damage claim $250,000).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on sovereign-immunity grounds under R.C. Chapter 2744; plaintiffs opposed, asserting genuine issues of material fact and improper delegation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding (1) assigning street numbers is a governmental function entitled to immunity, (2) the Board validly delegated the function to the County Engineer, and (3) Shaw’s driveway requirement was a reasonable policy.
- On appeal, the Fourth District independently reviewed summary judgment de novo and affirmed: no genuine material facts precluded judgment, delegation was proper, the function is governmental, and none of R.C. 2744.02(B)’s exceptions applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether designation of street/building numbers is a governmental or proprietary function under R.C. Chapter 2744 | Nihiser: function not necessarily governmental; thus immunity may not apply | County/Engineer: designation serves public safety/welfare and is a governmental function entitled to immunity | Held: function is governmental (promotes public safety/welfare; not customarily performed by private persons) |
| Whether the Board validly delegated authority under R.C. 303.021 to the County Engineer | Nihiser: only the Board may perform the statutory function; delegation was improper | County/Engineer: delegation to engineer (an employee/official) is permitted and does not destroy immunity | Held: delegation was proper; no prohibition in statute against delegation |
| Whether Shaw’s policy requiring a driveway before issuing an address exceeded statutory authority or created an issue of material fact | Nihiser: driveway requirement adds an unlawful precondition not in R.C. 303.021 and shows improper administration | County/Engineer: R.C. 303.021 provides no method; office policy is a reasonable, uniformly applied practice tied to safety and addressing accuracy | Held: driveway requirement was a reasonable, uniformly applied policy and did not preclude summary judgment |
| Whether any R.C. 2744.02(B) exceptions apply to defeat sovereign immunity | Nihiser: exceptions or alleged animus might apply to create liability | County/Engineer: no exception fits; function is governmental so immunity applies | Held: none of the statutory exceptions applied; immunity attached and summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standard of de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1997) (summary-judgment standard and construing evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
- Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 1998) (three-tier analysis under R.C. Chapter 2744 for political-subdivision immunity)
- Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 87 Ohio App.3d 704 (Ohio Ct. App.) (appellate review of summary judgment)
- Morehead v. Conley, 75 Ohio App.3d 409 (Ohio Ct. App.) (summary judgment review principles)
- McCloud v. Nimmer, 72 Ohio App.3d 533 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (performing governmental functions through private parties does not change function’s governmental character)