Rooney v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol
2017 Ohio 1123
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On July 4, 2013, an off-duty Chillicothe police officer reported a recklessly driven vehicle; the Chillicothe PD dispatcher called the Ohio State Highway Patrol (the Patrol) requesting backup.
- Patrol dispatcher Catherine Davis received the call but, according to the complaint, did not enter the request into the Patrol dispatch system or notify a trooper or another agency.
- Minutes later the reckless vehicle struck Anna Rooney’s car; she died the next day. Her father, Richard Rooney, sued the Patrol in the Ohio Court of Claims for negligence on July 1, 2015.
- The Patrol moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), asserting state public-duty immunity under R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(a); Rooney argued the complaint alleged facts sufficient to invoke the special-relationship exception in R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(b).
- The Court of Claims dismissed, finding the complaint failed to allege facts supporting two required elements of a special relationship: direct contact and justifiable reliance by the injured party.
- The Tenth District affirmed, holding the complaint did not plead facts sufficient to overcome statutory public-duty immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint plausibly alleges a special relationship under R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(b) to overcome state public-duty immunity | Rooney: complaint alleges Davis assumed an affirmative duty, knew inaction could cause harm, had direct contact, and Anna justifiably relied on Patrol undertaking | Patrol: complaint lacks factual allegations showing direct contact with Anna or her justifiable reliance; public-duty immunity therefore bars recovery | Court: Dismissal affirmed — complaint fails to plead facts showing direct contact or justifiable reliance, so immunity stands |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (pleading standard: dismissal only if plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling recovery)
- Ferron v. Dish Network, LLC, 195 Ohio App.3d 686 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) review de novo)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (court must presume factual allegations true and draw reasonable inferences for nonmoving party)
- State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206 (1997) (trial court limited to complaint when ruling on 12(B)(6))
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 (2003) (exceptions to state immunity under R.C. Chapter 2743 are cumulative and must be pleaded)
- Scott v. Columbus Dept. of Pub. Util., 192 Ohio App.3d 465 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (Ohio is a notice-pleading state, but plaintiffs must still allege facts that plausibly overcome immunity)