Opinion

Thorp v. Strigari

  • 155 Ohio App. 3d 245
  • 2003 Ohio 5954
  • 800 N.E.2d 392
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Nov 7, 2003
Status
Published
Author
Painter
On the bench
Gorman, Doan, Painter
Cited by
20 cases
Authority
More cited than 42.8%

noting that Ohio has held that public defenders, as employees of a political subdivision, are immune from claims of negligence under its Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, which provides that a public employee is “immune from liability in performing his job unless (1) his acts or omissions are manifestly outside the scope of his employment; (2) his acts or omissions are malicious, in bad faith, or wanton or reckless; or (3) liability is expressly imposed upon the employee by another statute.”

How later courts described this case

  • noting that Ohio has held that public defenders, as employees of a political subdivision, are immune from claims of negligence under its Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, which provides that a public employee is “immune from liability in performing his job unless (1) his acts or omissions are manifestly outside the scope of his employment; (2) his acts or omissions are malicious, in bad faith, or wanton or reckless; or (3) liability is expressly imposed upon the employee by another statute.”
  • “[T]he United States Supreme Court has declined to hold that federal law provides immunity for counsel in state malpractice suits, leaving the issue to the states to resolve.”
  • construing the general immunity statute Ohio Rev.Code § 2744.03

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Painter, Judge,

concurring.

{¶ 36} I concur in Judge Gorman’s well-reasoned opinion. The conclusions are required by the state of the law as handed down to us by the legislature and the Ohio Supreme Court.

{¶ 37} But I continue to believe that governmental immunity in the United States is simply one big legal mistake—based on the English model of “the king can do no wrong.”

3

We have no king. And we should not make the government king, and thus not liable for its transgressions against individual rights.

{¶ 38} As to this case, we do not know whether there was any malpractice—the case never got that far because of the immunity. But it is odd that a person with money, who can hire an attorney, has a remedy if the attorney errs, but a poor person has none. Alas, the way of the world; but in this case mandated by the legislature.

3

. See

Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.

(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 312 , 662 N.E.2d 287 , (Douglas, J., dissenting).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.