2024 Ohio 969
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- On April 5, 2020, Cleveland Police Officer Darrin Hunt collided with a Volvo SUV driven by Malik Robinson, with Michael Jones as passenger, at an intersection where Robinson had a green light and Hunt a red light.
- Hunt was responding to an automobile accident but did not use emergency lights or sirens as he entered the intersection on a red light.
- Hunt admitted fault for the collision, acknowledging he failed to adequately observe the intersection and did not engage emergency equipment.
- Robinson and Jones claimed significant property damage and personal injury, and sued Hunt and the City of Cleveland.
- The City and Hunt moved for summary judgment, claiming immunity under Ohio’s political subdivision tort statutes (R.C. Chapter 2744), arguing Hunt was responding to an emergency call and his conduct was not wanton or reckless.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether Hunt was responding to an "emergency call" and whether his conduct was reckless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City is immune under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) | The "emergency call" exception does not apply—Hunt was not proven to be responding to an emergency. | City is immune; Hunt was on an emergency call, no willful/wanton misconduct. | Denied summary judgment; factual dispute on whether Hunt was on an emergency call. |
| Whether Hunt is individually immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) | Hunt's conduct was reckless: running a red light without lights or sirens. | Conduct was not reckless or wanton; he looked before entering intersection and was careful. | Denied summary judgment; factual dispute as to whether Hunt’s actions were wanton or reckless. |
| Sufficiency of evidence on "emergency call" status | Self-serving statements insufficient; lacked documentary or dispatch evidence. | Hunt’s own testimony suffices to establish he was on an emergency call. | Hunt’s deposition alone insufficient; more evidence needed. |
| Whether factual disputes preclude summary judgment | Material factual disputes remain on both immunity and conduct. | No genuine dispute; should be decided as a legal matter. | Court found genuine disputes; summary judgment denied and case remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 (sets out the three-tier immunity analysis for political subdivisions)
- Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 (outlines requirements for emergency call defense in immunity context)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (burden-shifting in Ohio summary judgment proceedings)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (defines wanton and reckless misconduct under Ohio law)