Case law

Douglas v. Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn.

152 N.E.3d 1245 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2020

Appellees further argue that appellant has failed to cite any case in support of the proposition that a rocket experiment, in which the rocket was built and constructed by the student herself (as well as other students), would qualify … (Douglas Depo. at 36.) {¶ 43} Based on this court's de novo review of the pleadings and evidentiary materials submitted on summary judgment, there is no evidence to establish appellees "created an unreasonable risk

Monroe v. Troy Strawberry Festival, Inc.

210 N.E.3d 9 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 2023

Id. at ¶ 9. {¶ 10} The parties and the trial court acknowledge that Troy is immune from liability unless the Monroes can establish an exception to Troy’s statutory immunity. … The function of maintaining or repairing a sidewalk or street is clearly defined by statute as a governmental function. R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(e).

Gharibshahi v. State

2014 Ohio 1529 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2014

The evidence established Dr. Artman, an OB/GYN, held a faculty position at The Ohio State University ("OSU") since 1991. … Artman's options to lecture and conduct research do not qualify as sovereign functions sufficient to elevate her faculty appointment to a position with the state. Accordingly, we find Dr.

Doolittle v. Shook, 06 Ma 65 (3-23-2007)

2007 Ohio 1575 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2007

"Under the first tier, R.C. 2744.02 (A) grants broad immunity to political subdivisions. If immunity is established under R.C. 2744.02 (A), such immunity is not absolute, however. … This code section does not even clearly require any mandatory duty of the Board of Health, let alone impose civil liability for failure to perform a duty.

McQuown v. Coventry Twp.

95 N.E.3d 1007 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2017

. {¶ 4} On October 30, 2015, Coventry Township filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that, as a political subdivision, it is entitled to immunity and that no exceptions to political subdivision immunity apply in this … Coventry Township qualifies as a political subdivision pursuant to R.C. 2744.01(F). {¶ 12} In the second tier of the immunity analysis, "we determine whether one of the five exceptions to immunity outlined in R.C. 2744.02

State v. Curlee-Jones

2013 Ohio 1175 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2013

immunity was not upheld. … In other words, the case went beyond the qualified immunity stage.”

Thomas v. City of East Cleveland

61 Ohio App. 3d 75 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 1989

The appellee merely relied upon the pleadings and attempted to establish as a matter of law that the appellants’ cause of action was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Ill Conclusion Based upon the fact that the appellants’ complaint was not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the failure of the appellee to establish that no genuine issues of material fact existed for the trier

Rose v. Cardinal Industries, Inc.

68 Ohio App. 3d 406 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1990

Appellants argued further that, under the statute, notice of the defect was not required and, even if there was a notice requirement, the record clearly established that appellee had notice based on the fact that the caretaker … The Damas court, however, clearly stated its refusal to extend the provisions of R.C. 5321.04 to guests of tenants and did not qualify that decision based upon the fact that the case dealt with natural accumulations of snow

Eppley v. Tri-Valley Local School Dist., Ct2007-0022 (1-3-2008)

2008 Ohio 32 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 3, 2008

If it establishes one of the defenses, then immunity is reinstated. Cater , 83 Ohio St.3d at 28 , 697 N.E.2d 610 ; Hubbard v. … . {¶ 45} For the purposes of the immunity statute, the Board qualifies for general immunity since a public school district is a "political subdivision" pursuant to R.C. 2744.01 (F), and providing a system of public education

Brown Cty. Bd. of Health v. Raichyk

2013 Ohio 1727 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2013

manifest weight analysis, "the reviewing court weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly … An individual suing a political subdivision "must first establish an exception to immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)." Id. "In other words, 'R.C. 2744.03 is the third tier.

Shields v. Plummer

163 N.E.3d 653 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2020

The brief then concludes with discussion of "The Third Tier: Applicable Defenses," submitting that with the R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) exception established, the specific further immunity referenced in R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) (making … No. 20AP-214 10 2744.03(A)(5) defense applicable if the R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) exception had been established) is moot.

Marotto v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr.

2014 Ohio 4549 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2014

Bell's immunity." Id. at ¶ 19. The Court of Claims held the required hearing on July 25, 2013. {¶ 7} On January 9, 2014, the magistrate issued a decision finding that Dr. Bell was not entitled to immunity. … Canady when he supervised residents pursuant to "the policies, procedures, goals and objectives for the residency program" established by the university, as the "program's actual implementation required Dr.

Wattley v. Rinaldi

2025 Ohio 5538 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2025

.” {¶40} R.C. 2744.01(A) establishes governmental immunity for political subdivisions and their employees. … Once immunity is established under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), the second tier involves determining whether there exists any exception to immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(B). Id. at 557.

McConnell v. Dudley

106 N.E.3d 180 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2018

Appellants are not prejudiced here, however, as Coitsville Township was properly named as a party in the complaint and the Township is clearly the correct legal entity to be sued in this case. See Fields v. … R.C. 2744.03(A)(5). {¶21} Appellants correctly state that there is no dispute that they qualify for immunity under the first tier of the analysis.

Padilla v. Ymca of Sandusky County

78 Ohio App. 3d 676 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 1992

The only evidence before this court establishes that the Sandusky County Park District operated the swimming area of White State Park, a function for which a political subdivision is immune from suit under R.C. 2744.01(C) … Instead, it is clear that the Supreme Court of Ohio clearly regards Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution as permitting the legislature to limit the liability of government.

Campbell v. City of Youngstown, 06 Ma 184 (12-31-2007)

2007 Ohio 7219 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2007

This type of evidence is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact for the purposes of summary judgment. Accordingly, the trial court's decision is affirmed. … Campbell then contrasts these facts with those in this case by pointing out that her claim about lack of proper notice was raised in her initial complaint. {¶ 18} Campbell clearly shows that this case and Bram are not identical

Castner v. Jefferson Cty.

2025 Ohio 1309 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2025

Chapter 2744, which established the statutory governmental immunity that exists today. R.C. … The burden of proof is initially on the political subdivision to establish general immunity, and when established, Case No. 24 JE 0017

Village of Rayland v. Jenkins

118 N.E.3d 1121 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2018

Appellant concedes that its employees towed Appellees’ car in order to access the shut-off valve, mistakenly citing the Bibbo affidavit, which contains no averment regarding the towing of Appellees’ car. {¶8} Appellees clearly … The Act established statutory tort immunity in specific cases in which political subdivisions, including cities and townships, may otherwise be sued in negligence. Haynes v.

Parmertor v. Chardon Local Schools

2016 Ohio 761 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 29, 2016

There is no allegation in the complaint establishing the injuries were caused by a physical defect on or within the school grounds as contemplated by the statute. … Second, the statute clearly states that immunity is lost when the employee acts outside the scope of employment.

McCullough v. Youngstown School Dist.

2019 Ohio 3965 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2019

subdivision of immunity; and (3) the defenses or immunities contained in R.C. 2744.02(B) or R.C. 2744.03 which establish non-liability. … There was no clearly dangerous condition at that moment. See Lydic, 7th Dist.