Williams v. Glouster
2012 Ohio 1283
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Williams sued Village of Glouster for injuries from a slip on a wet, sandy area allegedly caused by storm drainage maintenance failure.
- Plaintiff alleged negligent maintenance of storm drainage caused flooding and property damage and sought damages.
- Village moved for summary judgment claiming immunity under R.C. 2744.02 and argued design/backup of the system caused the problem.
- Trial court denied summary judgment, finding maintenance of the storm drainage system is a proprietary function and that an exception to immunity could apply.
- On appeal, court held the allegations support negligent maintenance (proprietary function), rejected immunity, and remanded for factual resolution; found 2744.03(A)(5) does not automatically reinstate immunity; affirmed denial of summary judgment as to immunity.
- Judgment entered affirming dismissal of immunity defense; recklessness issue not reached due to the above disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does maintenance of the storm drainage system constitute a proprietary function removing immunity? | Williams argues maintenance is proprietary and negligent maintenance would overcome immunity. | Glouster contends maintenance is governmental or design/construction, not subject to liability. | Yes; maintenance is proprietary, and alleged negligent maintenance could pierce immunity. |
| Does 2744.03(A)(5) re-establish immunity where maintenance decisions involved discretion? | If maintenance was mandatory, immunity cannot be re-instated. | Maintenance decisions involve discretion and budgeting. | No reinstatement of immunity; even if discretionary, ex ante evidence showed inadequate maintenance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell Mfg. Co. v. City of Portsmouth, 113 Ohio St.3d 251 (Ohio 2007) (operation and upkeep of sewers is proprietary; city liable for negligent maintenance)
- Doud v. Cincinnati, 152 Ohio St. 132 (1949) (municipality liable for damages from negligence in maintenance of sewers)
- Essman v. City of Portsmouth, 2010-Ohio-4837 (Ohio Ct. App. (Scioto) 2010) (negligent maintenance of sewer/storm system analyzed as proprietary function)
- Malone v. City of Chillicothe, 2006-Ohio-3268 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (sustains that the decision regarding sewer maintenance does not invoke 2744.03(A)(5) immunity)
- Gabel v. Miami E. School Bd., 864 N.E.2d 102 (Ohio App. 2006) (discusses proprietary vs governmental function in context of 2744.)