“Appellants further contend that R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) provides an independent basis for imposing liability on the city. We reject this contention.... R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) is a defense to liability; it cannot be used to establish liability.”
How later courts described this case
- “Appellants further contend that R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) provides an independent basis for imposing liability on the city. We reject this contention.... R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) is a defense to liability; it cannot be used to establish liability.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by M.H. v. City of Cuyahoga Falls, 134 Ohio St. 3d 65 (2012)
83 Ohio St.3d 24, 28 (1998), abrogated on other grounds, M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 2012-Ohio-5336, ¶ 9-10
The opinion
Pfeifer, J.,
concurring. I concur because of my belief that Ohio’s sovereign immunity statute is unconstitutional. See Garrett v. Sandusky (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 139,141 , 624 N.E.2d 704, 706 (Pfeifer, J., concurring).