Riehm v. Green Springs Rural Volunteer Fire Dept., 2018 Ohio 4075

Background

On June 28, 2016, Lorri Riehm was fatally run over while walking on a reservoir embankment as Green Springs Rural Volunteer Fire Department (GSRVFD) member Seth Knieriemen reversed a modified Brush 14 truck during a rescue response to a capsized boat.
Brush 14 had a skid unit and platform blocking about 70% of rear-view mirror sightlines and lacked a reverse warning alarm; emergency flashers were on.
Knieriemen, a passenger-turned-driver, checked mirrors, did not walk around the vehicle or use a spotter, backed slowly in reverse, and testified he did not push the throttle; another firefighter yelled warnings but the truck struck Lorri.
Plaintiff (Paul Riehm, administrator) sued GSRVFD and Knieriemen for negligence, wrongful death, and survival claims; defendants asserted immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 and filed summary judgment motions.
Trial court denied summary judgment, finding genuine issues whether Knieriemen’s conduct was willful, wanton, or reckless and that the department was answering an emergency; appellants appealed.
The appellate majority reversed, holding GSRVFD and Knieriemen were entitled to immunity as a matter of law because conduct did not rise to willful, wanton, or reckless levels; one judge dissented as to recklessness (jury question).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether GSRVFD qualifies for political-subdivision immunity under R.C. 9.60/2744	GSRVFD did not prove it was performing contractual fire protection sufficient to invoke political-subdivision immunities	GSRVFD provided rescue services under contract and thus has the same immunities as a political subdivision	Held: GSRVFD qualifies for political-subdivision immunity (rescue services = governmental function)
Whether R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) exception (negligent operation of vehicle) applies or is defeated by defense for emergency response	Plaintiff argues exception exposes GSRVFD because vehicle negligence caused death	Defendants argue full statutory defense applies if vehicle was operated while answering an emergency and conduct was not willful/wanton	Held: Defendants were answering an emergency; statutory full defense applies unless conduct was willful or wanton
Whether Knieriemen’s conduct was willful or wanton such that immunity is lost for GSRVFD	Plaintiff contends failure to use spotter, walk-around, or audible warning, and obstructed mirror show wanton/willful conduct	Defendants point to mirror checks, slow reverse, flashing lights, and lack of intent as evidence of care short of wanton/willful misconduct	Held: Court held conduct did not meet willful or wanton standard as a matter of law; summary judgment for GSRVFD should have been granted
Whether Knieriemen acted recklessly (individual immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6))	Plaintiff says facts (obstructed view, people behind vehicle, no spotter) allow reasonable minds to find recklessness	Knieriemen argues his actions were at most negligent (checked mirrors, moved slowly) and thus entitled to individual immunity	Held: Majority held conduct not reckless as a matter of law (individual immunity granted); dissent would find recklessness a jury question

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 2012) (defines willful, wanton, and reckless standards)
Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 113 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio 2007) (three-tier analysis for political-subdivision immunity)
Riffle v. Physicians & Surgeons Ambulance Serv., Inc., 135 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 2013) (describes R.C. 2744 three-tier immunity framework)
Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 (Ohio 2003) (discusses exceptions and defenses under R.C. 2744)
M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 134 Ohio St.3d 65 (Ohio 2012) (summary-judgment standard articulation)
Argabrite v. Neer, 149 Ohio St.3d 349 (Ohio 2016) (violation of department policy alone does not establish wanton or malicious conduct)