Strayer v. Barnett
2017 Ohio 5617
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wesley Barnett, a nonverbal adult with autism and a history of physical aggression, moved from an Indiana facility to a Clark County residential program on May 25, 2012; SRI provided direct care and CCDD (Clark County Board of Developmental Disabilities) provided service/support administration.
- On June 21, 2012, Barnett bit and pushed two-year-old E.S. during a supervised walk; plaintiffs (the Strayers) sued Barnett, SRI, and CCDD/CCDD employees alleging negligent/reckless service and support administration.
- Plaintiffs’ theory: CCDD failed to provide an updated Individual Plan (IP) and behavior support plan to SRI, leaving staff without written guidance and resulting in the assault.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing no duty/special relationship, statutory immunities (R.C. Chapter 2744 and R.C. 2305.51), and employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for CCDD and employees; the appellate court affirmed, holding CCDD performed a governmental function under R.C. Chapter 2744 and CCDD employees’ acts were not wanton/reckless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCDD lost sovereign immunity because it performed a proprietary function | Provision of service/support administration is proprietary because private entities perform similar functions and CCDD didn’t own the residence | Statute (R.C. Chapter 5126) mandates county boards provide service/support administration—thus it is a governmental function | CCDD’s services are a governmental function; immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 applies |
| Whether R.C. 2305.51 (mental health provider immunity) bars plaintiff’s claims | R.C. 2305.51 does not apply / defendants acted recklessly so immunity shouldn't shield them | Defendants invoked statutory immunities including R.C. 2305.51 and 2744 | Court decided R.C. Chapter 2744 dispositive and affirmed immunity; did not reach R.C. 2305.51 issue |
| Whether CCDD and its employees owed a duty / harm was foreseeable | CCDD had a duty to ensure an updated IP and behavior plan to prevent foreseeable aggression | Defendants argued no special relationship/duty beyond statutory framework and that paperwork lapse did not render conduct reckless | Court found statutory duty context but concluded no exception to immunity applied; foreseeability/duty questions rendered moot by immunity ruling |
| Whether Path Coordinators’ (Garrett, Horvath) and supervisor Willis’s conduct was wanton/reckless | Failure to prepare/update written IP and behavior support plan before placement was reckless and created an obvious, substantial risk | Defendants showed extensive planning, transfer of prior IP/behavior information to SRI, trainings, and that omission was a paperwork error, not conscious indifference | Court held employee conduct did not meet high wanton/reckless standard; employees entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (summary judgment standard described)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (nonmoving party burden to show genuine issue of material fact)
- Riffle v. Physicians & Surgeons Ambulance Serv., Inc., 135 Ohio St.3d 357 (discussing interplay of R.C. 2744 exceptions and defenses)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishing wanton and reckless standards for employee immunity)
- Argabrite v. Neer, 149 Ohio St.3d 349 (rigorous standard for wanton/reckless conduct)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 70 Ohio St.3d 351 (definition of reckless disregard)
- O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 (mere negligence insufficient for overcoming immunity)