Pressler v. City of Franklin
90 N.E.3d 1
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2011 a distressed caller reported hearing someone yell "help" near the river but could not identify an exact location; the 9-1-1 call gave only a general landmark (end of 8th Street near the levee).
- Dispatcher Peggy Hembree dispatched police (Officer David Hatfield and Lt. Gerry Massey) to investigate; she did not request the fire department water rescue.
- Hatfield and Massey arrived, searched different stretches of the river/levee, heard or saw no one in distress, spoke to nearby pedestrians who reported hearing nothing, and ended their investigations; Massey notified downstream Middletown dispatch that someone might be floating downstream.
- Cody Pressler’s body was found along the riverbank four days later; his time and manner of entry into the river were unknown.
- Pressler (Cody’s mother) sued the dispatcher and the two officers alleging their grossly negligent, willful, wanton, or reckless conduct caused Cody’s death; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) immunity.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the court of appeals reversed as to all three defendants, holding they were entitled to immunity because their conduct was not wanton or reckless as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) because their conduct was not wanton or reckless | Pressler: conduct (dispatcher’s limited questioning; officers’ failure to call rescue or question nearby persons) was wanton/reckless and falls within exception to immunity | Defendants: they acted reasonably given lack of identifiable location, no observed or heard distress, dangerous river conditions, and thus are entitled to immunity | Court: Reversed trial court; as a matter of law defendants did not act wantonly or recklessly and are immune; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether dispatcher’s failure to summon water rescue was reckless | Pressler: failure to call water rescue was conscious indifference to risk | Hembree: caller could not provide location; she prioritized getting officers on scene and relayed downstream alert as instructed | Court: Not reckless — her conduct was reasonable given ambiguous information |
| Whether officers’ on-scene investigation (including decision not to call fire/rescue) was reckless | Pressler: officers should have taken additional steps (e.g., questioned two men, called water rescue) and their omissions show conscious disregard | Officers: they searched, interviewed nearby people, observed dangerous/uncorroborated conditions, and reasonably declined water rescue due to safety and lack of corroboration | Court: Not reckless — their investigation and decisions were reasonable under circumstances |
| Whether disputed facts preclude summary judgment on recklessness (i.e., jury question) | Pressler: credibility and choices (particularly Massey’s failure to question two men) create triable issues | Defendants: record shows objective facts (no corroboration, hazardous river, prompt search) that foreclose reckless finding | Court: For Massey majority — no evidence of conscious disregard; summary judgment proper. Dissent argues genuine issues exist and recklessness should go to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Massillon, 983 N.E.2d 266 (Ohio 2012) (defines "wanton misconduct" and "reckless conduct" for political-subdivision-immunity analysis)
- O'Toole v. Denihan, 889 N.E.2d 505 (Ohio 2008) (recklessness requires perverse or conscious disregard of a known risk; high standard supports summary judgment in appropriate cases)
- Kurz v. Great Parks of Hamilton Cnty., 65 N.E.3d 96 (Ohio 2016) (discusses when recklessness may be a jury question but recognizes summary judgment is appropriate if record lacks evidence of conscious disregard)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 639 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 1994) (ordinarily recklessness is for the jury; sets standard for employee immunity exceptions)
- Argabrite v. Neer, 75 N.E.3d 161 (Ohio 2016) (summary judgment appropriate when no evidence employee acted maliciously, in bad faith, wantonly, or recklessly)