Case law

Iannuzzi v. Harris

2011 Ohio 3185 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2011

In Colbert, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the notion that only those calls to duty that concern inherently dangerous situations qualify as emergency calls. Id. at ¶11. … may be asserted to establish nonliability: {¶37} “* * * {¶38} “(6) In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section * * * the employee is immune from liability unless one

State v. Tanner

2020 Ohio 5413 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2020

. {¶ 8} This Court has noted: The established standard of review for felony sentences is codified in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. … Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall

Tasse v. Marsalek

2020 Ohio 5084 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2020

It is well-established that the defenses in R.C. 2744.03 are only relevant if a plaintiff has established that one of the exceptions to immunity laid out in R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) through (5) applies to the conduct at issue … Because Appellees have not established that an exception to employee immunity applies here, Jarvis is entitled to immunity from their negligence claims.

Plush v. Cincinnati

164 N.E.3d 1056 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2020

Therefore, the second characteristic of the physical-defect exception cannot be established. {¶32} Because the Plushes cannot establish the second characteristic, the immunity exception contained in R.C. 2744.02 … Clearly, as alleged in the complaint, this conduct was negligent. Especially when considering that the officers were listening to music and were eating during the search.

Crew v. Advics Mfg. Ohio, Inc.

2020 Ohio 328 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2020

Crew further argued that summary judgment was inappropriate as AMO failed to establish it had paid premiums into the state insurance fund to provide coverage for Crew, thereby denying it the right to immunity under Ohio's … "A customer of a staffing agency may pay the workers' compensation premiums either directly or indirectly to qualify for immunity under R.C. 4123.74." Id., citing Foran v.

Al-Jahmi v. Ohio Athletic Comm.

2022 Ohio 2296 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2022

Refrain from appointing boxing officials who are not qualified; d. … As previously established, this risk is inherent to the sport of boxing and cannot be eliminated.

Nelson v. Schafer

2013 Ohio 5836 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2013

Shafer’s army vehicle did not qualify as an uninsured motor vehicle under the Nelsons’ policy. … An immunity under the Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Law and/or diplomatic immunity, and {¶25} “b.

Fedarko v. Cleveland

2014 Ohio 2531 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2014

from tort liability: the first tier is to establish immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1); the second tier is to analyze whether any of the exceptions to immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B) apply; if so, then under the third tier … Before R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) will remove a political subdivision’s immunity, a plaintiff must also establish the elements required to sustain a negligence action. Puffenberger v. Cleveland, 8th Dist.

Morgan v. Natale

2022 Ohio 1281 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2022

McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447, 453 N.E.2d 693 (1983), the Supreme Court of Ohio described immunity as applied to the actors in the judicial process: {¶73} “It is a well-established rule that judges, counsel, parties, … While performing these functions, he is entitled to only a qualified immunity. {¶76} “In determining whether the prosecutor’s acts are quasi-judicial as opposed to investigative or administrative, the courts have

Conley v. Wapakoneta City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

195 N.E.3d 1061 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2022

. {¶26} The second tier of the analysis involves establishing if any of the five exceptions to immunity that are listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) lift the sovereign immunity and expose the political subdivision to liability … Thus, Wapakoneta City School District is a political subdivision generally entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). {¶30} With immunity generally established and the first tier of the immunity analysis

Milbert v. Wells Twp. Haunted House, Inc.

2016 Ohio 5643 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 2016

The plaintiff concluded that factual questions clearly remained as to whether the lid failure was foreseeable and the design/construction was negligent. {¶10} The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a safety analyst … In viewing the design, the plaintiff urges one can clearly see the release mechanism was built so that it travels across the eye bolt which secures the lid.

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

2022 Ohio 1908 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 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.

Gabel v. Miami East School Board

169 Ohio App. 3d 609 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2006

In support, it argued that it was immune from tort liability. … The Gabels have not disputed that the school board qualifies as a "political subdivision” under R.C. Chapter 2744.

Cooper v. Grace Baptist Church of Columbus, Ohio, Inc.

81 Ohio App. 3d 728 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 1992

A directed verdict at that juncture of the proceedings is clearly permitted under Civ.R. 50(A)(1). … Since the doctrine of charitable immunity no longer insulates religious institutions and other nonprofit organizations from tort liability, Albritton v.

Keller v. Carroll Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

2022 Ohio 3526 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2022

When a political subdivision establishes general immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate one of the exceptions to immunity applies. Allied Erecting Dismantling Co. v. … R.C. 2744.02(B)(3). {¶18} The Ohio Supreme Court has clearly defined when the “in repair” exception applies. Pelletier, supra.

Below v. Dollar General Corp.

163 Ohio App. 3d 694 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2005

Accordingly, Dollar General asserted that it was entitled to immunity under R.C. 4123.74. … Moreover, Shippers Interstate can best be described as an employment agency which supplied qualified drivers to Stanadyne. Id.

Haynes v. City of Franklin

135 Ohio App. 3d 82 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1999

The trial court’s order clearly affected a substantial right because it denied the city the benefit of its statutory immunity defense. … As already noted, the trial court’s order clearly affected a substantial right of the city.

Marshall v. Franklin Cty. Treasurer

2025 Ohio 1147 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2025

Because “that immunity is not absolute,” the second tier of the analysis asks “whether any of the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) apply to expose the political subdivision to liability.” … Marshall’s allegation of liability for the mailing of a tax bill clearly establishes appellees’ political subdivision immunity.

Crabtree v. Cook

196 Ohio App. 3d 546 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2011

The first tier is the general rule that a political subdivision is immune from liability incurred in performing either a governmental function or proprietary function. However, that immunity is not absolute. … Nothing in these discussions precludes the conclusion that some conditions may fit the definition of both an obstruction and a nuisance; in fact, most obstructions are nuisances on some level, even if not all nuisances may qualify

Brady v. Bucyrus Police Department

194 Ohio App. 3d 574 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 23, 2011

.” {¶11} In November 2009, defendants filed their answer, asserting sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, statute of limitations, lack of personal and … Bd. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 150 Ohio App.3d 383, 2002-Ohio-6344, ¶ 26, citing Cater at 28. {¶45} For the purposes of the immunity statutes, the city qualifies for general immunity because