Reed v. Multi-Cty. Juvenile Sys.
2010 Ohio 6602
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Reed sued MCJAS, the Tobin Center, Howell, and other MCJAS employees for state tort and federal §1983 claims arising from sexual assaults by Howell at Tobin in 2005 when Reed was 16; Howell was no longer an MCJAS employee when sued; Reed alleged that MCJAS and employees breached duties to protect her from harm.
- Defendants answered with affirmative defenses; MCJAS asserted governmental immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1); employees were not named in the immunity defense in the first answer and the defense was raised only for MCJAS.
- Reed sought summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment against Reed on §1983 claims and allowed state claims against employees after finding waiver of immunity due to the employees’ failure to raise immunity in their amended answer; Reed cross-appealed on §1983 immunity.
- Depositions and investigations showed no written policy prohibiting men alone with female residents, no evidence of deliberate indifference by MCJAS or its employees, and Reed’s letter to her mother was not read as an official policy violation; the court held no genuine issue of material fact supported deliberate indifference.
- The court held the MCJAS employees waived statutory immunity by failing to raise it properly in the amended answer and affirmed summary judgment on Reed’s federal claims for qualified immunity; the state claims against employees remained, but the federal claims were resolved in favor of the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of statutory immunity by employees | Reed argues employees did not raise immunity. | MCJAS argues joint answer suffices and employees are covered by employer immunity. | Employees waived immunity; no summary judgment for them on state claims. |
| Qualified immunity on §1983 claims | Reed contends deliberate indifference existed; immunity should not apply. | No evidence showed deliberate indifference; immunity should apply. | No genuine issue; Reed’s §1983 claims fail due to qualified immunity. |
| Deliberate indifference evidence | Evidence showed supervisors knew of risks and failed to act. | Records show no actual awareness of substantial risk by any official. | Insufficient facts to show deliberate indifference; supports immunity ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Cent. Local School Dist., 85 Ohio St.3d 95 (1999) (waiver where immunity not raised earlier; notice pleading)
- Spence v. Liberty Twp. Trustees, 109 Ohio App.3d 357 (1996) (waiver when immunity defense raised late)
- Mitchel v. Borton, 70 Ohio App.3d 141 (1990) (waiver where defense raised in later motion)
- Saunders v. McFaul, 71 Ohio App.3d 46 (1990) (immunity cited; issue of proper citation discussed)
- Krieger v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 176 Ohio App.3d 410 (2008) (immunity/waiver analysis in joint pleadings)
- Jim's Steak House, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 81 Ohio St.3d 18 (1998) (pleading requirements for affirmative defenses)
- Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427 (1996) (notice pleading; fair notice of defense)
- Thayer v. Diver, 2009-Ohio-2053 (6th Dist.) (pleading flexibility; Civ.R. 1 & 8 in context of defenses)
- Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 (1973) (pleadings should resolve on merits, not technicalities)
- Saunders v. McFaul, 71 Ohio App.3d 46 (1990) (immunity discussion within context of jurisdiction)