Steele v. Cincinnati
2019 Ohio 4853
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On March 25, 2017, O’Bryan Spikes was killed by a stray bullet during a gunfight inside Cameo Nightclub; he was an innocent patron.
- Four Cincinnati police officers had been hired as private-duty (off‑duty) security for Cameo to provide “exterior security and police visibility” per the city’s Outside Employment Work Permit and employer acknowledgement form.
- Steele, as administrator of Spikes’s estate, sued the city, the officers, Cameo and related entities, alleging the club maintained a security “bypass” that allowed patrons to enter unscreened and bring weapons inside, and that the officers knew of and turned a blind eye to this practice.
- The city and the officers moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting governmental‑function immunity for the city and that the officers had no legal duty (and alternatively were immune) under the pleaded facts.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the city and the officers; Steele appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the city is immune under R.C. Chapter 2744 because the officers were performing a governmental function while on private‑duty at the club | Steele: officers were performing a proprietary function (private security) so R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) removes immunity | City: the officers provided police services/exterior visibility, a governmental function, so immunity stands | Held: officers were performing a governmental function (exterior police visibility); city immune; judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether the officers owed a duty to prevent weapons from being brought into the nightclub under the complaint’s allegations | Steele: officers knew or should have known of the security bypass and breached a duty by allowing weapons in | Officers: they were only hired for exterior security/visibility and had no authority/duty to screen/search patrons absent reasonable suspicion | Held: under the pleaded facts officers had no duty to screen or prevent weapons from entering; no duty established; judgment for officers affirmed |
| Whether the complaint adequately alleged malice, bad faith, or wanton/reckless conduct to defeat officers’ immunity | Steele: complaint alleged officers acted with malicious purpose, bad faith, or wanton/reckless conduct given foreseeability of violence | Officers: allegations were conclusory and insufficient to show malice/bad faith/wanton recklessness | Held: court did not need to reach immunity on this ground because no duty was pled; in any event allegations were insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Waldman v. Pitcher, 70 N.E.3d 1025 (2016) (standard for reviewing Civ.R. 12(C) motions; accept nonmoving party’s allegations and decide de novo)
- Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. Liming, 89 Ohio St.3d 551 (2000) (determine governmental vs proprietary by examining the specific act at issue)
- Cannavino v. Rock Ohio Caesars Cleveland, L.L.C., 83 N.E.3d 354 (2017) (off‑duty officers performing special duty were performing a governmental function)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officer may stop/frisk only with reasonable, articulable suspicion; no authority for random searches)