White v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2017 Ohio 9397

Plaintiff Christian White, an inmate at Grafton Correctional Institution, alleged corrections officers used excessive force during placement in handcuffs on January 18, 2016, causing a cut above his eye.
Earlier that day C.O. Brooke Hassen alleged White made a derogatory remark; White denied it and was later escorted to Capt. Lloyd Brownlee’s office for questioning.
Brownlee ordered White to "get on the wall" (face the wall, hands above head) to be handcuffed; White initially questioned the order but then complied.
While C.O. Dan O’Flaherty was applying handcuffs, White turned his head, protested, and (according to officers) attempted to push off the wall; Brownlee responded by pressing/pushing White back to the wall, and White struck his head on the wall and bled.
Officers completed incident/conduct reports; White was treated in medical and later filed this action alleging excessive force/battery and negligence. Liability and damages were bifurcated; trial addressed liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers used excessive/unreasonable force in subduing White during handcuffing	White contends Brownlee pushed his head into the wall causing injury and that force was unnecessary	Officers assert force was reactionary, necessary to control a noncompliant inmate and to secure handcuffing	Magistrate found force was reasonable, necessary, and minimal; judgment for defendant
Whether officers committed battery by intentional harmful/offensive contact	White argues the contact was harmful/offensive and intentional	Defendant invokes privilege/justification to use force to obtain compliance with orders	Battery not proven because force was justified under circumstances
Whether defendant breached duty of care to inmates (negligence)	White alleges breach causing injury	Defendant argues use of force complied with policy and was reasonable	Magistrate found no breach; plaintiff failed to prove negligence
Whether plaintiff’s initial noncompliance changed justification for force	White notes he complied and was then injured; argues no need for force once compliant	Defendant points to plaintiff’s continued resistance/protest and attempt to turn/push as grounds for reactive force	Court credited officers’ testimony that plaintiff resisted during handcuffing; reactive force justified

Love v. Port Clinton, 37 Ohio St.3d 98 (1988) (defendant may defeat a battery claim by establishing a privilege or justification for the contact)