Veller v. K.B.
2025 Ohio 687
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2025Background
- Giselle Veller, as administrator of Ashton Copeland’s estate, sued multiple parties after her 15-year-old son died in a single-car accident; the car was driven by K.B., a minor.
- Veller alleged the accident was caused or contributed to by dangerous/defective road conditions in Wood County, particularly on King Road near railroad tracks, due to lack of signage, steep ditches, absence of guardrails, and other issues.
- Among several defendants, only the Wood County Board of Commissioners appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss Veller’s third amended complaint.
- The Board argued it was immune from suit under Ohio’s political subdivision liability statutes and that Veller failed to plead sufficient facts—specifically, that King Road was a “county road” within its jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that Veller did not have to plead with specificity at the motion-to-dismiss stage and that the record did not conclusively establish King Road's designation.
- On appeal, the Sixth District affirmed the trial court’s refusal to dismiss negligence-based claims but reversed as to others (intentional torts, negligent infliction of emotional distress, injunction as a standalone claim, and unspecified claims), remanding for partial dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Negligence Claims Against Board | Alleged Board responsible for dangerous road and failed to maintain/repair it. | Veller failed to allege King Road is a county road, so duty to maintain not shown. | Sufficiently pleaded; dismissal properly denied—facts infer Board responsibility. |
| Affirmative Defense of Political-Subdivision Immunity | Was not required to plead around immunity at this stage. | Complaint shows Board immune under Ohio law; Veller did not trigger an exception. | Board could not establish immunity solely from complaint at dismissal stage. |
| Dismissal of Claims for Emotional Distress & Spoliation | Board’s acts caused severe emotional distress/spoliation damages. | Intentional/negligent infliction and spoliation not exceptions to immunity. | Claims dismissed—no exception to immunity for these torts. |
| Claim for Injunctive Relief/Public Nuisance | Standing for injunction due to unique harm and public safety concerns. | Injunction is a remedy, not an independent claim; no facts support public nuisance. | Claim dismissed—injunction not independent cause, no special injury alleged. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (Ohio 1975) (standard for motion to dismiss under Ohio notice pleading)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1991) (as long as a set of facts supports the claim, dismissal is improper)
- Wilson v. Stark Cty. Dept. of Human Servs., 70 Ohio St.3d 450 (Ohio 1994) (intentional infliction of emotional distress immunity)
- Paugh v. Hanks, 6 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio 1983) (negligent infliction of emotional distress test in Ohio)
- Clouston v. Remlinger Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc., 22 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1970) (loss of consortium claim elements)