Pierce v. Woyma
2012 Ohio 3947
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Pierce sued Woyma and the City for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and respondeat superior liability arising from an October 28, 2005 incident in the Warehouse District of Cleveland.
- Woyma, a police officer, allegedly assisted in an incident where Pierce's boyfriend fought with him and was later charged after a grand jury indictment; Pierce herself was charged with obstructing official business and obstructing justice.
- Woyma wrote a report naming Pierce as a suspect; charges were brought by a superior officer and a prosecutor, and Pierce was eventually found not guilty of obstructing official business and the obstructing justice charge was dismissed.
- Pierce filed suit January 26, 2009; the City and Woyma moved to dismiss, which the trial court granted on September 3, 2009, and Pierce appealed.
- On remand, Woyma moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied, and this court ultimately held that Woyma was immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) and reversed the trial court's decision.
- The court remanded for entry of judgment consistent with immunity, with a partial dissent suggesting possible issues regarding grand jury probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Woyma is immune under RC 2744.03(A)(6). | Pierce argues immunity should not apply due to malicious conduct. | Woyma contends he acted within scope and did not act with malice, bad faith, or recklessness. | Immunity applies; Woyma entitled to summary judgment on the ground of statutory immunity. |
| Whether Pierce proved malicious prosecution against Woyma. | Pierce asserts lack of probable cause and malice via Woyma's report. | Woyma filed a report, but indictment and grand jury evidence show probable cause; Woyma did not initiate charges. | Pierce failed to show lack of probable cause or that Woyma instituted proceedings; immunity applies. |
| Whether Pierce's abuse of process claim survives immunity. | Pierce contends Woyma’s involvement and intent perverted legal process. | Woyma had no role in charging decision; no malice or improper use of process shown. | Immunity defeats abuse of process claim; no genuine issue for trial. |
| Whether Pierce's IIED claim survives immunity. | Pierce argues Woyma’s conduct was extreme and outrageous intended to cause distress. | Woyma's conduct was not intended to cause serious emotional distress and was not extreme or outrageous. | Immunity applies; IIED claim fails as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trussell v. Gen. Motors Corp., 53 Ohio St.3d 142 (1990) (elements of malicious prosecution)
- Adamson v. May Co., 8 Ohio App.3d 266 (1982) (grand jury indictment not conclusive presumption of probable cause)
- Deoma v. Shaker Hts., 68 Ohio App.3d 72 (1990) (evidentiary burden shifting on probable cause)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 70 Ohio St.3d 356 (1994) (definition of wanton/reckless misconduct)
- Hicks v. Leffler, 119 Ohio App.3d 424 (1997) (malice and bad faith concepts in immunity analysis)
- Long v. Hanging Rock, 2011-Ohio-5137 (4th Dist.) (standard for when summary judgment on immunity is appropriate)
- Theobald v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2006-Ohio-6208 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (malicious intent and improper conduct standards)