Case law

Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety

2025 Ohio 5648 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2025

Id. {¶ 14} Sovereign immunity dictates a state is immune from liability absent its explicit consent. See Smith v. Ohio State Univ., 2024-Ohio-764, ¶ 12. … To qualify for the special relationship exception to the public duty immunity rule, the amended complaint needed to include facts sufficient to show the state assumed an affirmative duty to act on behalf of appellant, some

Everett v. Parma Hts.

2013 Ohio 5314 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2013

. {¶13} Under the second tier of the statutory analysis, once immunity is established, a determination must be made as to whether any of the five exceptions to immunity listed under R.C. 2744.02(B) apply. … However, before R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) will remove the City or the County’s immunity, the Everetts must first establish the elements required to sustain a negligence action and second, that the negligence arose out of “a proprietary

Gessner v. Vore, 22297 (8-1-2008)

2008 Ohio 3870 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2008

The trial court granted the motion on findings that Gessner's action is barred by res judicata and qualified immunity. (Dkt 24). … Defendants are clearly state officers.

Daly v. Certo

2025 Ohio 293 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2025

McDonald Village Police Dept., 70 Ohio St.3d 351, 356 (1994). {¶ 96} R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) provides that this qualified immunity is “[i]n addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section … . {¶ 106} Both Daly’s complaint and deposition testimony clearly established that Certo was the acting prosecutor for the City of Riverside at all relevant times.

Phillips v. Ohio Department of Natural Resources

26 Ohio App. 3d 77 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 1985

Rather, existing authority clearly demonstrates that Ohio has not adopted the expansive view in the area of sovereign immunity for which appellants contend. … This court, however, must decide this case on what it understands are the present parameters of immunity that apply to these facts in Ohio as established by the General Assembly and the Ohio Supreme Court.

Barrow v. Vill. of New Miami

104 N.E.3d 814 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2018

New Miami argued it was immune from liability pursuant to the political subdivision immunity of R.C. Chapter 2744. … Once immunity is established, the second tier of the analysis carves out certain exceptions to immunity which re-establish the liability of a political subdivision in certain delineated situations. R.C. 2744.02(B).

Rooney v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol

2017 Ohio 1123 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2017

The Court of Claims found that Davis, the alleged negligent state employee, was clearly engaged in the performance or nonperformance of a public duty for which the state was immune from liability. … Rooney argues that the Court of Claims and the Patrol's "interpretation of the pleading standard regarding immunity defenses is overly broad, and it contravenes well-established Ohio jurisprudence, which only requires a plaintiff

Rastaedt v. Youngstown

2013 Ohio 750 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2013

As was the case in Lovick though, the catch basin clearly was not part of the road. … It points out that Rastaedt argued in her opposition to summary judgment that the slope of the road constituted a qualified nuisance that stripped the City of immunity.

State ex rel. Conroy v. Williams

185 Ohio App. 3d 69 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2009

Any argument based on the immunities offered by that chapter of the Revised Code are clearly in the context of a negligence claim and are inapplicable to Defendant [sic] discrimination claims. Notwithstanding that R.C. … Clearly, if the reverse-discrimination claims against McKelvey are true, he was properly denied summary judgment not only on sovereign-immunity grounds but as to his discretionary argument as well.

Fediaczko v. Mahoning Cty. Children Servs.

2012 Ohio 6095 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2012

summary judgment for the aforementioned supervisor on grounds that no liability was established, and refused to grant summary judgment for the executive director and the two caseworkers on their immunity claim, finding that … R.C. 2743.02(A)(3). {¶20} The child’s estate argues that the county agency and county board clearly had a special relationship with the child as all of the four elements are satisfied.

Brister v. Cleveland

2014 Ohio 1232 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2014

. {¶2} Brister’s complaint against the city alleges that on May 23, 2011, he qualified as an invitee of the city’s Thurgood Marshall Recreation Center, where he was exercising on a back lateral machine. … is established, a determination must be made as to whether any of the five exceptions to immunity listed under R.C. 2744.02(B) apply.

Jontony v. Colegrove

2012 Ohio 5846 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2012

However, this factor alone does not establish that the City did not act in good faith. … based on the “emergency call” doctrine are not clearly established in the instant case.

Gomez v. Noble Cty. Children Servs.

2010 Ohio 1538 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2010

On March 7, 2008, Appellees filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing that Gomez failed to state any claim that would qualify as an exception to Appellees' general immunity from liability as a political subdivision … - 11 - establish liability.

Fuson v. City of Cincinnati

91 Ohio App. 3d 734 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1993

immunity. 10 We choose to address these arguments as one. … Qualified immunity protects individuals rather than municipalities. See Owen v. City of Independence, Mo. (1980), 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 .

Camargo v. Toledo

2024 Ohio 488 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2024

Chapter 2744, and qualified immunity. {¶ 5} The city’s April 11, 2022 motion for summary judgment argued that Camargo failed to raise a cognizable tort claim. … With immunity presumptively established, whether any exceptions to immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B) must be determined. {¶ 17} Camargo fails to argue the availability of any R.C. 2744.02(B) exceptions to immunity.

Lewis v. Ayersville Local School Dist.

226 N.E.3d 438 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2023

-7- Case No. 4-23-03 {¶17} As an initial matter, it is important to note that once a political subdivision establishes general immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff … Id., ¶ 27-28. {¶23} In the case sub judice, the Lewises urge that their complaint set forth sufficient facts that, if proven, establish the school district is not entitled to immunity due to a physical defect

Dickerson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth.

2014 Ohio 4672 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2014

Pike No. 08CA787, 2010-Ohio-347, the court found that the city of Waverly was not entitled to immunity where a limb from an unmaintained tree, which qualified as a physical defect, fell and injured a woman who was standing … However, because R.C. 4101.11 does not expressly establish liability, the statute cannot create an exception to immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)(5). See Magda v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 8th Dist.

Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Cleveland

2024 Ohio 1475 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2024

Photographs of Ohio Bell’s cable clearly show that it was cut by something, most likely a jackhammer. At the very least, Ohio Bell has established a genuine issue of material as to the cause of its injury. … Defense to Liability Inapplicable The city argues that even if Ohio Bell establishes that it (the city) was negligent, the city has a defense that reinstates immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(5).

Thorp v. Strigari

155 Ohio App. 3d 245 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2003

The immunity from suit can be absolute or qualified. See Míreles v. Waco (1991), 502 U.S. 9, 9-12 , 112 S.Ct. 286 , 116 L.Ed.2d 9 ; Barlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 . … The Thorp appellants have failed to sustain their burden of establishing that the immunity granted to public defenders by R.C.

Berner v. New Leaf Residential Servs., Inc.

2024 Ohio 1788 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 9, 2024

Under the first tier of the analysis, there is no dispute that CCBDD qualifies as a political subdivision. … Therefore, CCBDD is entitled to immunity from suit unless Berner can establish under the second tier that one of the exceptions to immunity applies.