# Leverett v. State

> Ohio Court of Appeals · October 26, 1978 · 61 Ohio App. 2d 35

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3778040

## Case

- **Full name:** Leverett, Admx., v. the State of Ohio Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 26, 1978
- **Citations:** 61 Ohio App. 2d 35; 15 Ohio Op. 3d 62; 399 N.E.2d 106; 1978 Ohio App. LEXIS 7660
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Holmes
- **Judges:** Strausbaugh, Holmes, Whiteside
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3778040

## Opinion text

Holmes, P. J.,
concurring. I concur in this decision because I feel that the philosophy comports with the general thrust of what I stated in the case of
Jenkins
v.
Division of
Wildlife, unreported, Tenth Appellate District, No. 75AP-524, rendered August 12, 1976.
In such decision, at page 5,1 stated:
“Fundamentally, the tortious conduct complained of against the state, in order to fall within the purview of the statute, must be the type of act or function that could be done by a private party rather than an act or function uniquely governmental by nature, exercising an officer’s discretionary administrative determination. Governmental functions that cannot be performed by a private party are not within the ambit of the waiver of immunity. There are, of course, a considerable number of functions which are intrinsically capable of performance only by the government and not by private parties, and within these areas of activity it is our view that the government has not waived its immunity from liability resulting from damages caused by purely governmental functions.”
Here, the type of act or function could be done by a private party, rather than a discretionary act or function uniquely governmental by nature; and, in similar manner, as in the case of a private mental hospital there is a duty to act reasonably and in good faith in the release of known dangerous mental patients, for the breach of which third parties may maintain an action against the state.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3778040. Public record. Not legal advice.