Wilson v. Cleveland
2012 Ohio 4289
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Wilson v. City of Cleveland; plaintiff injured by a loose manhole cover on a sidewalk near Walford Ave and West 100th.
- The city sought summary judgment asserting political subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 and argued the sidewalk exception no longer applies post-2002 amendment.
- Record on summary judgment is incomplete because plaintiff’s deposition was not filed; the record relies on a three-page deposition excerpt and a self-serving affidavit.
- City presented Division of Water records showing no known notice of the specific manhole cover condition.
- Court concluded the sidewalk is not within the post-amendment sidewalk exception and that no genuine issue of notice existed; immunity applies; case reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for the city.
- The court held that, even if a proprietary function were involved, there was no actual or constructive notice established by Wilson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether city has immunity under RC 2744.02(A)(1). | Wilson argues immunity does not apply due to negligent maintenance. | City argues immunity applies unless an exception applies. | City immunity applies; no applicable exception shown. |
| Whether sidewalk exception RC 2744.02(B)(3) still applies after amendment. | Sidewalks fall within the exception. | Amendment removed sidewalks from the exception. | Sidewalks are not covered; immunity remains. |
| Whether Wilson showed actual notice of the defect. | City had actual notice through prior incidents/records. | City submitted evidence of no knowledge of the specific defect. | No actual notice shown. |
| Whether Wilson showed constructive notice. | Disputed cracks in sidewalk implied defect existed long enough to discover. | Cracks shown did not prove long-standing defect; timing uncertain. | Constructive notice not established. |
| Whether the case involves a governmental vs. proprietary function. | Maintenance of manhole/sewer constitutes proprietary function. | Maintenance of sidewalk is governmental; sewer/water is proprietary. | Even if proprietary, no notice shown; immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gordon v. Dziak, 2008-Ohio-570 (8th Dist. No. 88882 (2008)) (sidewalks not public roads; immunity for sidewalk maintenance)
- Burns v. Upper Arlington, 2007-Ohio-797 (10th Dist. No. 06AP-680 (2007)) (injury from a defective sidewalk; sidewalk maintenance is governmental)
- Tyler v. Cleveland, 129 Ohio App.3d 441 (8th Dist. 1998) (evidence of sewer maintenance defeat immunity when showing defective sewer system)
- Scott v. Columbus, 2011-Ohio-677 (10th Dist.) (manhole cover incident; possible maintenance negligence)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (three-tier immunity analysis)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary judgment burden and computation of material facts)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (negligence standards in summary judgment)