2014 Ohio 4359
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Willie J. Wright, an ODRC inmate assigned to North Central Correctional Complex (NCCC), sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) for negligence after he fell while exiting a prison van on March 9, 2012.
- Wright alleged the transporting correctional officers (employees of Management & Training Corporation, MTC) negligently failed to use a wheelchair, remove shackles, or assist him exiting the van.
- MTC, a private contractor, operates NCCC under a written contract with ODRC; the contract prescribes staffing, training, policies, procedures, and specific rules for inmate transportation.
- ODRC moved for summary judgment arguing MTC is an independent contractor and ODRC cannot be vicariously liable for MTC’s employees. Wright argued MTC is ODRC’s agent, making ODRC vicariously liable under respondeat superior.
- The Court of Claims granted summary judgment to ODRC, finding MTC an independent contractor. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that material factual disputes exist about MTC’s status (agent vs. independent contractor) and summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ODRC is vicariously liable for MTC employees’ negligence (i.e., is MTC an agent or independent contractor?) | MTC is an agent of ODRC because the contract and practices show ODRC controls details of prison operations and personnel (training, staffing, procedures). | MTC is an independent contractor that operates NCCC independently; ODRC does not control MTC’s daily decisions and thus is not vicariously liable. | Reversed trial court: factual disputes about control/agency preclude summary judgment; issue for factfinder. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richman Bros. Co. v. Miller, 131 Ohio St. 424 (1936) (general rule that employer not liable for independent contractor’s negligence)
- Ohio S. R. R. Co. v. Morey, 47 Ohio St. 207 (1890) (control principle distinguishing agent from independent contractor)
- Pusey v. Bator, 94 Ohio St.3d 275 (2002) (reinforces nonliability for independent contractor’s negligence)
- Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Wuerth, 122 Ohio St.3d 594 (2009) (respondeat superior and principal–agent liability principles)
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (2005) (vicarious liability under respondeat superior)
- Councell v. Douglas, 163 Ohio St. 292 (1955) (test focusing on right of control to determine agency)
- State ex rel. Nese v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 136 Ohio St.3d 103 (2013) (lists factors for agency vs. independent-contractor analysis)
- Bostic v. Connor, 37 Ohio St.3d 144 (1988) (summary judgment inappropriate where agency status is factual dispute)