Srokowski v. Shay
2014 Ohio 3145
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Ted Srokowski sued the City of Cleveland, Cleveland Police Officer Michael Shay (and others), and a private bar after an alleged violent arrest/handling at McNulty’s Bier Markt while Shay — in uniform — was providing security for the bar.
- Complaint alleges Shay dragged Srokowski from a booth, smashed his face into the floor, banged his head while handcuffed, secreted and detained him in an upstairs room, and later arrested and jailed him.
- Srokowski pleaded 18 claims including negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), assault/battery, false imprisonment, civil rights/deprivation, negligent hiring/training, and others; many claims were against the City.
- The City moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) asserting statutory immunity under Ohio’s Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act (R.C. Chapter 2744), arguing Shay was performing a governmental function (police services) and thus the City is immune.
- The trial court dismissed 14 claims as to the City but denied dismissal of the negligence and NIED claims, reasoning it was unclear from the complaint whether Shay was acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity while providing private security.
- On interlocutory appeal the appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed the trial court’s denial as to negligence and NIED, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged facts that — if proven — could fall within a proprietary-function exception to immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City immune under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) for conduct of officer providing security | Srokowski alleged facts that could show officer acted in a proprietary function and pleaded negligence/NIED sufficient to overcome immunity at pleading stage | City: officer was performing a governmental function (police services) so City has absolute immunity from negligence/NIED claims | Court: Remanded for claims of negligence and NIED to proceed; at pleading stage plaintiff alleged a plausible proprietary-function theory, so dismissal was improper |
| Whether plaintiff must plead exceptions to immunity at pleading stage | Plaintiff: need only allege facts that, if true, plausibly allow recovery; no requirement to establish exception at pleadings | City: immunity question can be resolved on pleadings because officer was performing police function | Court: Adopted precedent that a plaintiff need not prove exception at pleading stage — only plead facts that could show exception |
| Proper standard on Civ.R. 12(B)(6) reviewing political-subdivision immunity | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Court applied de novo review, accepting complaint allegations as true and asking whether any set of facts consistent with complaint could entitle plaintiff to relief |
| Whether alleged intentional torts could survive against the City | Plaintiff argued some allegations could support negligent/proprietary claims | City argued complaint pleads intentional acts which do not fit proprietary-function negligence exception | Court: dismissed intentional-tort claims against City but preserved negligence/NIED claims to extent they could be tied to a proprietary function |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (standard of review on Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416 (de novo review on dismissal motions involving complex claims)
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d 491 (pleading standard: dismissal only if no set of facts supports claim)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (plaintiff need only plead a set of facts allowing recovery)
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 (three-tier R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)
- Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. Liming, 89 Ohio St.3d 551 (distinguishing governmental vs. proprietary functions and exposing proprietary acts to liability)
- Wooster v. Arbenz, 116 Ohio St. 281 (historical test for governmental vs. proprietary functions)