2021 Ohio 3451
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Schlegel owns a home at the SE corner of Boyden Rd. and Meadowview Dr.; two metal culverts and a drainage ditch at that T-intersection convey runoff.
- County inspection (Apr. 2016) found rusted, holey culverts; County drafted plans and approved replacement in 2017.
- A sinkhole formed near the culvert in spring 2017; Schlegel’s basement flooded on May 21, 25, and 28, 2017; the County cleared debris, temporarily plated the hole, and replaced both culverts in July 2017.
- Schlegel sued the County for negligence, alleging (a) negligent roadway maintenance and (b) negligent maintenance of a proprietary ‘‘sewer system’’ (ditches/culverts) causing sewer backup.
- County moved for summary judgment asserting governmental immunity (R.C. Chapter 2744): the ditch/culverts are not part of a county sewer system (so no proprietary-function exception), or in the alternative the claims concern governmental design/reconstruction decisions and discretionary acts.
- Trial court denied immunity in part; the Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed as to the proprietary-function exception, holding Schlegel failed to raise a genuine issue that the ditch/culverts were part of a larger county-operated sewer system and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ditch/culverts constitute a “sewer system” so R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) (proprietary-function exception) applies | Schlegel: the ditch, culverts, catch basins and alleged stormwater fee show they are part of a larger county sewer system and thus maintenance is proprietary | County: culverts/ditch are drainage features to move surface water under roadway, not part of a county-operated sewer system; no evidence County operated upstream/downstream system or charged Schlegel a maintenance fee | Held for County — Schlegel failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue that the features were part of a larger county-operated sewer system; immunity exception inapplicable; summary judgment should have been granted on that ground |
| Whether remedy required was repair (proprietary maintenance) or reconstruction/design (governmental function) | Schlegel: County’s actions could be characterized as maintenance/negligent repairs causing backup | County: the problem required reconstruction/design decisions (governmental function) | Not reached — rendered moot by disposition of first issue |
| Whether immunity is restored under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) because County’s actions involved discretionary decisions | County: discretionary policymaking/personnel/resource-allocation decisions justify reinstatement of immunity | Schlegel: County’s operational acts remain nonimmune | Not reached — moot after resolution of primary issue |
| Jurisdictional/appealability issue: whether denial of immunity is final, appealable | Schlegel: trial rulings should remain | County: order denying immunity is final and appealable | Court applied Hubbell: denial of a political subdivision’s immunity is a final, appealable order (procedural posture accepted) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (denial of political-subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 is final, appealable)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (summary-judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s and nonmoving party’s burdens under Civ.R. 56)
- Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 (2011) (three-tiered R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 (2003) (political-subdivision immunity framework)
- Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998) (exceptions to immunity under R.C. 2744.02)
- Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231 (2010) (scope of R.C. Chapter 2744 governing political-subdivision immunity)