Case law

Brooks v. Ohio State University

111 Ohio App. 3d 342 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 1996

Appellant asserts that R.C. 2305.25 provides a qualified immunity for a member of a quality assurance committee; however, that immunity can be negated if the member acts outside the scope of the committee’s functions or if … In addition, appellant asserts that R.C. 2305.24 establishes immunity for a physician who furnishes information about a patient that he treated, but does not establish immunity for everything the physician might have done

Black v. Ohio Bd. of Nursing

204 N.E.3d 1154 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2022

Gelesh did not qualify for immunity under R.C. 2133.11(A)(6) "because giving that medication was a medication error and as such was a departure from the minimum standard of care." (Brief of Appellee at 31.) … See Gelesh I, 2007-Ohio-3328 at ¶ 12 (stating that "the Board clearly advocates that R.C. 2133.11 * * * provides an affirmative defense to the disciplinary sanctions authorized by R.C. 4731.22(A) and (B)").

Gundel v. Whalen Lawn & Landscaping, L.L.C.

2022 Ohio 2763 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2022

. {¶8} Gundel responded by arguing that WLL was the employer and though Whalen was its sole member, he did not qualify as employer on the facts of this case. … ruling and finds Whalen is entitled to immunity under these statutory provisions.

North Coast Cable Ltd. Partnership v. Hanneman

98 Ohio App. 3d 434 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1994

NCCLP argues the absolute privilege applies only to witnesses who were subpoenaed to testify before legislative committees and voluntary witnesses have only qualified immunity. We disagree. In Costanzo v. … In our opinion, NCCLP did establish a genuine issue for trial. It specifically showed Hanneman’s statement.

Fox v. Parma Community General Hospital

160 Ohio App. 3d 409 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2005

Section 11111(a)(2), Title 42, U.S.Code. {¶ 28} Qualifying “professional review actions” are those taken: {¶ 29} “(1) in the reasonable belief that the action was in the furtherance of quality health care, {¶ 30} “(2) after … Moreover, the record irrefutably establishes that an outside reviewer was selected to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and cases were chosen for outside review based upon clearly defined criteria, including postsurgical

Lacey v. Ohio Aud. of State

2019 Ohio 4266 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2019

This privilege is either absolute or qualified. Mettke v. Mouser, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-1083, 2013-Ohio-2781, ¶ 6. … The procedure for determining this immunity is set forth in R.C. 2743.02(F).

Falzone v. Rutkowski

46 Ohio App. 3d 166 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1988

may be asserted to establish non-liability: * * “(5) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the injury, death, or loss to persons or property resulted from the exercise of judgment or discretion * * * unless … Accordingly, appellee, a regional transit authority and a political subdivision, qualifies for sovereign immunity within R.C. 2744.03.

Shope v. Portsmouth

2012 Ohio 1605 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2012

. {¶13} Once immunity is generally established, “the second tier of analysis is whether any of the five exceptions to immunity in subsection (B) apply.” Id. at ¶ 12. … In other words, regardless of whether obstruction-related traffic control devices qualify as public roads, Scioto App.

Bibler v. Stevenson

2015 Ohio 3717 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2015

. {¶16} Here, the Biblers do not dispute that the City is a political subdivision and qualifies for general immunity. … has been established by the political subdivision, the burden lies with the plaintiff to show that one of the recognized exceptions applies.

Gabris v. Blake

5 Ohio App. 2d 57 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 1966

The comments in Standard Fire as to nuisance are also clearly dicta. … Perhaps it was an ‘ ‘ absolute ’ ’ nuisance and not merely a ‘ ‘ qualified ’ ’ one.

Hogan v. Village of South Lebanon

73 Ohio App. 3d 230 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1991

The district court found the resolution to be unconstitutional, but determined that the trustees were entitled to qualified immunity. … If their conduct is administrative, they are entitled to qualified immunity. If their conduct is neither judicial, legislative nor administrative, they are not entitled to any immunity.

McNamara v. City of Rittman

125 Ohio App. 3d 33 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 7, 1998

It is clear from case law and the Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act that some form of qualified municipal immunity has existed in Ohio from the mid-nineteenth century until the present day, covering the period … Barring this statutory action by immunity in another part of the Revised Code would be nonsensical and clearly contrary to the intent of the General Assembly.

Carlton v. Davission

104 Ohio App. 3d 636 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1995

immunity. … U.S.Code; (8) Davisson was entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity from suit for alleged civil rights violations under Section 1983; and (7) the deputy and the sheriffs department were entitled to sovereign immunity

Puffenberger v. Cleveland

2013 Ohio 4479 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2013

However, before R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) will remove a political subdivision’s immunity, a plaintiff must first establish the elements required to sustain a negligence action and second, that the negligence arose out of a “proprietary … The city concedes that the maintenance of the manhole qualifies as a “proprietary function” under the statute and, therefore, we move on to consider whether Puffenberger has established that the city was negligent in maintaining

Alcus v. Bainbridge Twp.

152 N.E.3d 340 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2020

Chapter 2744 establishes a three-step analysis to determine whether a political subdivision is immune from liability. Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. … Whether the Alcuses also met their burden to establish an exception to the Township’s immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) is moot.

Bernard v. Cincinnati

2019 Ohio 1517 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2019

This broad immunity, however, is not without limits. … Moreover, just because a pipe fails or does not perform optimally does not establish negligence in the immunity context. 2. {¶26} The Bernards also turn exclusively

Transky v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission

193 Ohio App. 3d 354 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2011

If they were acting in the latter capacity, appellants claim that the officials are entitled only to qualified immunity. … , but merely qualified immunity.

Ezerski v. Mendenhall

188 Ohio App. 3d 126 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2010

The Ezerskis also contend that Vandalia cannot re-establish its immunity using a statutory defense. … Still, although one of these circumstances exists, the political subdivision can re-establish its immunity using the defenses in R.C. 2744.03.

Carmen v. Link

119 Ohio App. 3d 244 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1997

In the present case, appellees assert that the ninth defense of their amended answer establishes the defense of immunity for injury by a fellow servant. … Clearly, the type of immunity found in the West Virginia statutes granting immunity to employers and fellow employees for the employer’s contribution to the workers’ compensation fund does not violate the Ohio Constitution

Yoby v. Cleveland

155 N.E.3d 258 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2020

R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) establishes the general rule of immunity granted to municipalities and provides in relevant part: Except as provided in division (B) of this section, a political subdivision is not liable … While there are five exceptions to this immunity, appellants have failed to present any evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact regarding any of those exceptions.