Rudd v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 78 N.E.3d 273

On July 27, 2013, fugitives Devonere Simmonds and Nathaniel Brunner abandoned a stolen vehicle and were walking along highways; police had circulated the vehicle description and plate as connected to violent crimes.
Dispatcher Matthew Prachar mis-entered the vehicle license plate into the database; Sergeant Jeffrey Shane responded to a disabled vehicle report, located the abandoned car, and radioed the (incorrect) plate.
Sergeant Shane encountered the two men, accepted their explanation that the car ran out of gas, placed them in his cruiser, transported them to a TravelCenters of America truck stop, and left them there after attempting a phone call and relaying a number to dispatch.
About two hours after Shane departed the truck stop, the fugitives shot and seriously injured William Rudd at a gas pump and stole his vehicle.
Appellants sued the Ohio State Highway Patrol alleging negligent acts by Prachar and Shane proximately caused Rudd’s injuries; the Court of Claims dismissed for failure to state a claim under sovereign immunity/public-duty doctrine.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued a statutory four-part “special relationship” exception to immunity applied; the appellate court affirmed dismissal, finding the complaint failed to allege the elements of a special relationship.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether public-duty immunity bars negligence claim	Rudd: patrol assumed an affirmative duty and created a special relationship that removes immunity	State: actions were routine law-enforcement public duties; immunity applies	Held: Immunity applies; complaint fails to plead special-relationship elements
Whether dispatcher’s inaccurate plate entry created affirmative duty	Rudd: Prachar undertook to provide accurate info and had a duty to do so	State: dispatcher’s work is part of public duty; no specific promise to Rudd	Held: Allegations show only generalized duty, not an affirmative undertaking to Rudd
Whether direct contact element of special relationship exists	Rudd: contact with fugitives by Shane linked state action to subsequent victims at truck stop	State: injured victim had no direct contact with patrol; >2 hours elapsed	Held: No direct contact between state agents and injured party; element unmet
Whether plaintiff justifiably relied on police undertaking	Rudd: patrons/employees reasonably relied on patrol’s intervention and safety	State: any reliance would be generalized reliance on police, not specific or justifiable reliance	Held: Reliance was generalized; statutory reliance element not alleged

Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (standard of review for Civ.R. 12[B][6] de novo)
State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (1992) (Civ.R. 12[B][6] tests complaint sufficiency)
Assn. for Defense of Washington Local School Dist. v. Kiger, 42 Ohio St.3d 116 (1989) (pleading standards on motions to dismiss)
State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206 (1997) (courts confined to complaint when resolving Civ.R. 12[B][6])
O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (plaintiff must show set of facts entitling relief to survive dismissal)
Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (reasonable inferences and pleading standards)
York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (public-duty doctrine discussion)
Sawicki v. Ottawa Hills, 37 Ohio St.3d 222 (1988) (adopting four-part special-duty test)
Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255 (1987) (origin of multi-factor special-relationship analysis)