2020 Ohio 6949
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Robert O’Brien was injured on a Great Parks–operated golf course when a riding lawnmower driven by a park employee struck a golf cart and knocked him onto the mower deck; he later flew off and suffered a shoulder injury.
- Great Parks investigated; post-accident inspection showed "damage" but the golf-course mechanic averred the mower had no mechanical problems before the accident.
- The O’Briens sued Great Parks for negligence and loss of consortium; their complaint referenced "defective equipment" but did not plead a specific statutory exception to political-subdivision immunity.
- Great Parks moved for summary judgment asserting statutory immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- On appeal the O’Briens relied primarily on the physical-defect exception (R.C. 2744.02(B)(4)) and, for the first time, invoked the motor-vehicle exception (R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)). The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of general political-subdivision immunity | O’Brien argued exceptions to immunity apply (physical defect; later, motor-vehicle) | Great Parks showed it is a political subdivision performing a governmental function and is entitled to immunity absent an applicable statutory exception | Immunity applies; plaintiff must show an R.C. 2744.02(B) exception to proceed |
| Physical-defect exception (R.C. 2744.02(B)(4)) — location and defect elements | O’Brien: injury occurred "on the grounds" (near clubhouse/tee) and the mower’s brakes were faulty (a physical defect) | Great Parks: location satisfied but no evidence the mower was defective; mechanic’s affidavit said no mechanical problems; risk-manager’s vague "damage" is insufficient; improper use is not a physical defect | Location satisfied, but no admissible evidence of a physical defect; exception not shown, so immunity remains |
| Motor-vehicle exception (R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)) | O’Brien (on appeal): a riding lawnmower is a "motor vehicle," so the exception applies | Great Parks: issue was not raised below and is therefore waived; plaintiff did not plead or brief this exception at trial | Waived for failure to raise and develop below; appellate court declined to consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (sets Ohio summary-judgment standards)
- R.K. v. Little Miami Golf Ctr., 1 N.E.3d 833 (elements of R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) physical-defect exception)
- Kurz v. Great Parks of Hamilton Cty., 65 N.E.3d 96 (application of political-subdivision immunity and exceptions)
- Summerville v. Forest Park, 943 N.E.2d 522 (policy favoring early resolution of immunity questions)
- Leasure v. Adena Local School Dist., 973 N.E.2d 810 (defining "physical defect")
- Duncan v. Cuyahoga Community College, 970 N.E.2d 1092 (discussing "physical defect")
- Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn., 780 N.E.2d 543 (statutory-construction principle against rewriting statutes)
- Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 846 N.E.2d 478 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Conley v. Shearer, 595 N.E.2d 862 (procedural policy on immunity litigation)
- Roe v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Human Serv., 560 N.E.2d 238 (procedural precedent on raising issues)