2013 Ohio 4479
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On May 31, 2010, James Puffenberger stepped on a manhole cover on a Cleveland tree lawn; the cover flipped up and he fell into the hole, injuring his knee and later requiring surgery.
- The manhole was serviced by the City; the last documented city service date was March 31, 2010, with an assigned meter number for tracking.
- Puffenberger sued the City of Cleveland alleging negligent maintenance of the manhole caused the hazardous condition and his injuries.
- The City moved for summary judgment asserting governmental immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 and denying negligent maintenance or notice of the dangerous condition.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City; the court of appeals reviewed the grant de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City is immune under R.C. Chapter 2744 | Puffenberger: R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) (proprietary-function exception) applies because sewer/manhole maintenance is proprietary and the City was negligent. | City: General immunity applies; even if proprietary function, no evidence City employees negligently created the hazard. | Court: City generally immune; proprietary-function exception only removes immunity if plaintiff proves negligent employee performance — Puffenberger failed to do so. |
| Whether the City negligently maintained the manhole (duty, breach, proximate cause) | Puffenberger: Existence of hazardous condition indicates negligent maintenance. | City: No evidence a city employee caused or knew of the unsecured cover; public access could have caused tampering. | Court: Plaintiff must show employee negligence in performance of duties; no evidence of negligent service or causation by City employees. |
| Whether the City had notice or exclusive control of the dangerous condition | Puffenberger: City should be liable for unsafe condition. | City: No actual or constructive notice; last service two months earlier and the superintendent attested to no complaints; cover accessible to public. | Court: No evidence of notice, duration, or exclusive control by City — summary judgment appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 472 N.E.2d 707 (Ohio 1984) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)
- Tyler v. Cleveland, 129 Ohio App.3d 441, 717 N.E.2d 1175 (8th Dist. 1998) (municipal liability where evidence showed recent similar incidents at same manhole)
- Williams v. Glouster, 864 N.E.2d 102 (Ohio App. 2012) (proprietary-function exception requires establishing negligence by employees)