Wolf v. Cleveland Div. of Police
2017 Ohio 7889
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 29, 2013 Officer Ryan Sowders, with a field-training officer, was driving a Cleveland patrol car at high speed westbound on Lorain Ave. responding to an officer’s request for assistance; they did not radio in but Sowders says lights and siren were activated.
- Noreen Wolf was westbound and began a left turn onto W. 69th St. at the same time Sowders attempted to pass on the left; the vehicles collided, causing serious injuries.
- Wolf sued Sowders and the City alleging negligence and wanton/willful/reckless misconduct; the City and Sowders counterclaimed.
- The City and Sowders moved for summary judgment asserting statutory immunity under Ohio R.C. Chapter 2744 (police responding to emergency calls are immune unless conduct is willful or wanton).
- The trial court denied summary judgment, concluding genuine issues of material fact existed about speed, whether lights/siren were activated, and whether the officer’s conduct was wanton/reckless. The City and Sowders appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City is immune under R.C. 2744 for police-provided services (vehicle operation exception) | Wolf argues exception applies because Sowders’ negligent/wanton driving caused injury so immunity shouldn’t bar relief | City contends R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a) shields it because officer was responding to an emergency and did not commit willful or wanton misconduct | Trial court denial affirmed: genuine factual disputes preclude finding City immune at summary judgment |
| Whether Officer Sowders is entitled to individual immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) | Wolf contends Sowders acted wantonly/recklessly (high speed, passing in no-pass zone, failure to use lights/siren) | Sowders contends he was responding to an emergency with lights/siren and did not act maliciously, in bad faith, wantonly or recklessly | Affirmed: factual disputes (speed, lights/siren, compliance with procedure) preclude immunity on summary judgment |
| Applicability of willful/wanton standard and equivalence between statutory provisions | Wolf argues evidence meets willful/wanton standard to defeat immunity | Defendants argue evidence insufficient as matter of law to show willful/wanton conduct | Court applied legal standards and concluded issues of material fact remain; resolved in favor of denying summary judgment |
| Notice of appeal technicality (App.R.3 omission of officer’s name) | Wolf argued Sowders waived appellate challenge because not named in City’s notice of appeal | Defendants treated omission as nonjurisdictional; appellate court should exercise discretion to consider appeal | Court exercised discretion and considered Sowders’ appeal, finding omission nonjurisdictional |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Civ.R.56 summary judgment burden and standards)
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 (three-tier R.C. 2744 immunity framework)
- Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (analysis of R.C. 2744 exceptions and defenses)
- Wagner v. Heavlin, 136 Ohio App.3d 719 (equating "wanton or reckless" under R.C.2744.03(A)(6) with "willful or wanton" under R.C.2744.02(B)(1)(a))
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (definition of reckless conduct for immunity analysis)