Seikel v. City of Akron
946 N.E.2d 250
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- On May 20, 2006, Shannon Seikel, nine, was injured when a tree fell onto the vehicle she was in on Memorial Parkway in Akron; the tree fell from a lot owned by Akron.
- On January 18, 2008, the Seikels sued Akron for negligent maintenance of trees on the adjacent lot.
- Akron moved for summary judgment arguing immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) as a political subdivision.
- The Seikels argued the tree-maintenance was a proprietary function not shielded by immunity.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, holding tree maintenance on city property could be proprietary; Akron appealed.
- The appellate court reverses, holding Akron is immune as a matter of law because no immunity exception applies and the case should be decided under immunity rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Akron is immune from liability under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). | Seikels contended maintenance of the adjacent lot was a proprietary function. | Akron argued maintenance was a governmental function and immune. | Immunity applies; no exception applies; summary judgment for Akron proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (standard for summary judgment in immunity cases)
- Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7 (1983) (procedural guidance on summary-judgment review)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (summary-judgment criteria; burden on moving party)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (Dresher framework for Civ.R. 56(E) burden shifting)
- Conley v. Shearer, 64 Ohio St.3d 284 (1992) (immunity determinations are questions of law on summary judgment)
- Howard v. Miami Twp. Fire Div., 119 Ohio St.3d 1 (2008) (legislative amendments to 2744.02(B)(3) narrowed immunity exceptions)
- Harp v. Cleveland Hts., 87 Ohio St.3d 506 (2000) (discussed former immunity standard under 2744.02(B)(3))
- Laurie v. Cleveland, 2009-Ohio-869 (2009) (tree trimming governed as governmental function under Laurie while clarifying obstruction vs. nuisance)
- Estate of Finley v. Cleveland Metroparks, 189 Ohio App.3d 139 (2010) (analysis of immunity-related issues in park/urban-tree context)
- Featherstone v. Columbus, 2006-Ohio-3150 (2006) (treatment of trees near public sidewalks as governmental function)