2017 Ohio 9337
Oh. Ct. App. 11th Dist. Lake2017Background
- Willowick operates the city's sanitary sewer system; in July 2013 many homes (including Ragazzo’s) were flooded by raw sewage following a system backup.
- Ragazzo filed a class-action negligence complaint alleging the city failed to maintain, operate, and repair the sewer system, causing the 2013 backup.
- Council minutes and the complaint describe prior problems (2010 backup affecting ~200 residents) and repeated official recognition of calcification, collapsed lines, and debris/blockages that needed attention.
- The city answered, asserted political-subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744, and moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- The trial court denied the city’s motion, finding the complaint plausibly alleged negligent performance of a proprietary function (maintenance) and thus an exception to immunity.
- The city appealed the denial of immunity; the appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) immunity applies or the proprietary-function exception (R.C. 2744.02(B)(2)) defeats immunity | Ragazzo: Alleged facts show failure to maintain/repair sewers (a proprietary function), so immunity does not bar negligence claim | Willowick: Complaint lacks sufficient factual detail to show maintenance (vs. design/construction) liability; thus immunity applies | Held: Complaint plausibly pleads negligent maintenance; proprietary-function exception may apply, so immunity was properly denied at pleading stage |
| Whether discretionary immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) restores protection for maintenance decisions | Ragazzo: Maintenance/repair are non-discretionary routine obligations not covered by R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) | Willowick: Even if proprietary, decisions about maintenance involve discretion and thus immunity should be restored | Held: Court followed precedent that routine maintenance/repair is not discretionary; R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) does not restore immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Guenther v. Springfield Twp. Trustees, 970 N.E.2d 1058 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012) (distinguishes design/construction immunity from non-immune maintenance/operation of sewers)
- Coleman v. Portage Cty. Engineer, 975 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2012) (adopts guidance for distinguishing design/reconstruction claims from maintenance claims)
- Greene County Agricultural Soc. v. Liming, 733 N.E.2d 1141 (Ohio 2000) (explains R.C. 2744’s three-tier immunity framework)
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 664 N.E.2d 931 (Ohio 1996) (supports de novo review standards for motions testing legal sufficiency of pleadings)