Parker v. Distel Constr., Inc., 2011 Ohio 4727

Parker v. Distel Construction, Inc. (2011-Ohio-4727) in the Fourth District of Ohio, Jackson County.
Parker (plaintiff) fell into an uncovered water meter pit adjacent to the defendant’s water meter.
Complaint (Aug. 26, 2009) alleges negligent maintenance of the water meter hole caused injuries.
Defendant moved for summary judgment claiming statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A) and no applicable B(2)/(B)(3) exceptions.
Trial court denied summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact.
Appeal concerns whether the water meter pit lid maintenance falls within a proprietary function removing immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) removes immunity for maintenance of the water meter pit lid.	Parker, citing proprietary function of water supply maintenance.	Distel, arguing maintenance of the pit lid is governmental function.	Yes, water meter lid maintenance is a proprietary function.
Whether the water meter pit is part of the water supply system or a sidewalk/right-of-way issue.	Parker's claim rests on water system maintenance.	Distel asserts it concerns sidewalk maintenance.	Water meter pit lid maintenance is part of the water supply system (proprietary function).

Burns v. Upper Arlington, 2007-Ohio-797 (Franklin App. 2007) (manhole-related sidewalk issue distinguished from sewer maintenance)
Scott v. Columbus Dept. of Pub. Utilities, 2011-Ohio-677 (Franklin App. 2011) (manhole cover defect tied to maintenance of sewer system, not sidewalk)
Martin v. Gahanna, 2007-Ohio-2651 (Franklin App. 2007) (uncovered sewer drain liability for maintenance/inspection negligence)
Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 113 Ohio St.3d 266 (2007) (three-step immunity analysis under RC 2744)
Essman v. Portsmouth, 2010-Ohio-4837 (Scioto App. 2010) (proprietary function includes maintenance of water supply system)