2012 Ohio 3369
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Taylor was hit by a City police cruiser driven by Officer Prettyman who was transporting a prisoner to the hospital; light at Prospect Ave/East 30th St flashed yellow for Taylor and red for Prettyman; Prettyman did not stop or activate lights/sirens.
- Taylor and her minor daughter sued the City in 2009, refiled in 2010, alleging negligent or willful and wanton operation of a vehicle.
- City moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744; trial court denied; interlocutory appeal followed.
- Court explained the three-tiered R.C. 2744 immunity framework: immunity under 2744.02(A)(1), potential exceptions under 2744.02(B), and defenses under 2744.03.
- Court held Officer Prettyman was on an emergency call as a matter of law due to transporting a prisoner per police dispatch, but unresolved factual issues remained on willful/wanton conduct and compliance with traffic rules; judgment affirmed in part and remanded for further proceedings on those issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prettyman was on an emergency call | Taylor: no emergency call; not responding to duty | City: transporting prisoner invoked emergency call | Yes, emergency call; immune on this basis |
| Whether Prettyman's conduct was willful or wanton | Taylor: speed/direction showed willful/wanton conduct | City: conduct could be non-wanton given emergency context | Issues of fact remain for trial on willful/wanton liability |
| Whether 4511.03(A) applies to the facts | Taylor: statute imposes no duty to stop, given emergency | City: applies and requires caution; possible high speed | Statute applies; genuine issues of fact exist on how caution was heeded |
Key Cases Cited
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 (2003) (broadened ‘call to duty’ interpretation for emergency responses)
- Stevenson v. Prettyman, 193 Ohio App.3d 234 (2011) (reciprocal burden showing wanton/reckless conduct; earlier denial reversed)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary judgment standard de novo; three-part test)
