Wingfiled v. Cleveland
2014 Ohio 2772
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Wingfield sued the City of Cleveland, the Cleveland police department, and two John Doe officers for negligence and IIED in Oct 2012.
- Amended complaint identified officers Cortes and Zarlenga as the John Doe defendants.
- Alleged incident occurred July 31, 2011 outside a West 6th Street bar where mounted police allegedly knocked Wingfield down and trampled him.
- Trial court granted summary judgment: police department not sui juris; city immune under R.C. 2744.02; officers immune under 2744.03.
- Appeal argued immunity did not apply and that there were questions of fact regarding officer negligence.
- Court conducted de novo review and affirmed summary judgment for city and officers, concluding immunity barred the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 2744.02(B)(1) negate city immunity for alleged negligent operation? | Wingfield contends horse riding is like motor vehicle operation. | Horse riding is not a motor vehicle, thus not within 2744.02(B)(1). | Horse riding is not a motor vehicle; immunity remains. |
| Are Cortes and Zarlenga immune under 2744.03(A)(6) for alleged acts during the incident? | Officers were negligent and acted with malice/wanton/reckless disregard. | No evidence of outside-the-scope acts or express liability; must show malice/wanton/reckless. | Officers are immune; no evidence of malicious, wanton, reckless, or bad-faith conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio Supreme Court 2012) (defines wanton and reckless conduct for immunity analysis)
- Elston v. Howland Local Schools, 113 Ohio St.3d 314 (Ohio Supreme Court 2007) (three-step immunity framework for political subdivisions)
- Walsh v. Mayfield, 2009-Ohio-2377 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County (Court of Appeals) 2009) (immunity from intentional torts for political subdivisions)