Vos v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2018 Ohio 2956

Background

Donald Vos and Dennis Wallace sued the Ohio EPA in the Court of Claims alleging the agency improperly issued permits and failed to inspect the Negley, Ohio landfill, allowing allegedly dumped human blood and body parts from out-of-state sources.
Plaintiffs sought $10,000 plus costs to exhume, test, and convert the landfill into a grave site.
The Court of Claims dismissed individual agency directors as improper defendants and granted the agency’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, finding plaintiffs failed to state a claim.
The trial court held (1) regulatory/rule violations do not create a private cause of action against the state absent statutory authorization and (2) the public-duty immunity bars claims regarding permitting/inspection unless a special relationship is pleaded.
Plaintiffs appealed; the appellate court affirmed, concluding the complaint alleged only discretionary public duties and contained no facts establishing the special-relationship exception.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an allegation that the agency failed to enforce its own rules creates a private cause of action for money damages against the state	Vos: Agency breached its regulatory duties in permitting/inspecting Negley landfill, causing property damage	Ohio EPA: Regulatory rules do not create a private cause of action; no statutory waiver authorizes money damages	Held: Regulatory violations alone do not create a private cause of action against the state; dismissal affirmed
Whether the agency is immune under the public-duty doctrine for permitting/inspection activities	Vos: Agency acted willfully/wantonly and should be liable despite public-duty framework	Ohio EPA: Permitting/inspecting are public duties under R.C.; immunity applies absent special relationship	Held: Permitting/inspection are public duties; immunity applies because plaintiffs did not allege a special relationship
Whether plaintiffs pleaded a special relationship to overcome immunity	Vos: Plaintiffs assert agency knowledge and coverup but did not plead direct promises/contact	Ohio EPA: Plaintiffs failed to plead the statutory four elements (assumption, knowledge, direct contact, reliance)	Held: Complaint lacks factual allegations satisfying special-relationship elements; exception inapplicable
Whether individual agency directors are proper defendants in Court of Claims	Vos: Sought relief against past and present directors	Ohio EPA: R.C. 2743.02(E) permits only the state (agencies/instrumentalities) as defendants in Court of Claims	Held: Directors properly dismissed; only the state agency may be sued in Court of Claims

Key Cases Cited

Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 (2010) (standard for evaluating Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206 (1997) (trial court may not rely on allegations or evidence outside complaint on 12(B)(6))
LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St.3d 323 (2007) (pleadings construed in plaintiff’s favor on motion to dismiss)
Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416 (2002) (if any set of facts consistent with complaint would permit recovery, dismissal improper)
York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (same principle re: dismissal)
Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 (2009) (courts need not accept unsupported legal conclusions as true)
McCord v. Division of Parks and Recreation, 54 Ohio St.2d 72 (1978) (state’s waiver of immunity does not create new causes of action)
Chambers v. St. Mary's School, 82 Ohio St.3d 563 (1998) (regulatory rules do not create private right of action absent statutory authority)
Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 (2002) (statutory violation alone does not authorize suit unless statute creates cause of action)
Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp. v. McKinley, 130 Ohio St.3d 156 (2011) (appellate review of 12(B)(6) is de novo)