Williams v. McFarland Properties
2013 Ohio 1384
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Williams sustained a work-related injury in 2004 while employed as a lineman for the City of Hamilton.
- He sued the city and others in 2005, claiming various theories including an intentional tort by the city.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the city on immunity defenses under R.C. 2744 in 2007.
- Williams appealed; this court affirmed the summary judgment in 2008, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction later that year.
- In 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court decided Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., holding R.C. 2744.09(B) applies to certain employee-intentional tort claims, creating a change in decisional law.
- Williams moved for relief from the summary judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) claiming a change in law entitles relief; the trial court denied the motion and Williams appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief was proper for a change in decisional law. | Williams contends Sampson changed law and justifies relief. | City argues Sampson is a change in decisional law not grounds for Civ.R. 60(B) relief. | Relief denied; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 131 Ohio St.3d 418 (2012-Ohio-570) (applies 2744.09(B) to employee-related intentional torts with employment connection)
- Doe v. Trumbull Cty. Children Servs. Bd., 28 Ohio St.3d 128 (1986) (change in decisional law does not qualify for Civ.R. 60(B) relief; final judgments must stay intact)
- Veidt v. Cook, 12th Dist. No. CA2003-08-209, 2004-Ohio-3170 (2004-Ohio-3170) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Civ.R. 60(B) motion)
- Coats v. Columbus, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-681, 2007-Ohio-761 (2007-Ohio-761) (R.C. 2744 immunity principles at play in employee-related claims)