Case law

Drake-Lassie v. State Farm Insurance Companies

129 Ohio App. 3d 781 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 1998

Ohio case law holds a forklift qualifies as a motor vehicle as defined by Ohio Revised Code 4501.01(B), and therefore plaintiff is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits for injuries caused by the negligence of an uninsured … The affidavit of Bichel clearly states that the forklift is not designed for construction work.

Hancock v. Ashenhurst, Unpublished Decision (6-24-2004)

2004 Ohio 3319 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2004

No. 00AP-689. {¶ 26} The standard for qualified immunity is one of objective reasonableness. Id. … of clearly established law and the information that he possessed.

State v. Williams

2026 Ohio 1953 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 27, 2026

We must also consider whether the State has “establish[ed] ‘the probability’ that the errors claimed did in fact occur.” … “[T]he record of the trial court’s proceedings should clearly reflect the court’s inquiries into the bases of the claim of privilege and the proponent’s responses.”

Estate of Fleenor v. Ottawa Cty.

2021 Ohio 2251 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2021

may be asserted to establish nonliability * * *”: 12. … Causation {¶ 55} Riverview insists that even if its immunity defense fails, it is nonetheless entitled to summary judgment because the estate is unable to establish causation.

Covent Insurance v. Carroll County Commissioners

2 Ohio App. 3d 410 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1981

The dicta, relied upon by the trial court in Ditmyer , quoted in the court’s opinion, stated: “The failure of the General Assembly to use the phrase ‘free from nuisance’' or other such terminology in R.C. 305.12 clearly indicates … what facts must be present to abrogate a county’s sovereign immunity under R.C. 305.12.

Stewart v. Gentile

2025 Ohio 5012 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2025

The court held that this immunity covered pre-indictment, statements, and affidavits. … ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3 THE TRIAL COURT’S INSUFFICIENCY FINDINGS ON THE PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT’S ABUSE OF PROCESS CLAIM WERE CLEARLY AND MANIFESTLY AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

Wierzbicki v. Carmichael

91 Ohio Law. Abs. 220 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1963

In failing to employ the necessary personnel and other qualified help to supervise plaintiff’s decedent’s hospitalization, so as to prevent him from falling from his bed and sustaining the injury hereinbefore mentioned. ’ … Stated tersely, the rule of state and county immunity applies to the board of trustees of a county hospital.

Schmauch v. Walnut Lake Campground, L.L.C.

2023 Ohio 1848 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2023

Pursuant to that statute, camp operators are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability for "any harm to a camper or visitor resulting from a risk inherent to camping." … This is likely because the qualified immunity granted to camp operators by R.C. 3729.15(B) did not become effective until May 30, 2022.

Moore v. Cleveland

2017 Ohio 1156 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2017

R.C. 2744.03(A) prescribes the defenses or immunities that a political-subdivision employee may assert to establish nonliability in a civil action for damages allegedly caused by an act or omission in connection with a … LEXIS 2060 (May 9, 2001), which the court indicated was a case with facts that “clearly show what constitutes a perverse disregard of a known risk.”

Allen v. Rankin

2013 Ohio 456 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2013

Chapter 2744 establishes a three-step analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability. Martin v. Ironton, 4th Dist. No.07CA37, 2008-Ohio-2842, 2008 WL 2381737, ¶9. See Cramer v. … The trial court found that the facts of this case do not qualify so as to invoke any of the exceptions to immunity as defined in R.C. 2744.02(B). We agree.

Elliott v. Ohio Department of Insurance

88 Ohio App. 3d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 1993

In addition, defendant contends that the prosecutorial immunity doctrine provides governmental immunity to the state and personal immunity to the individual employees. … When performing investigative or administrative functions, the immunity is only qualified. Willitzer , at 449, 6 OBR at 490-491, 453 N.E.2d at 694 , citing Dellums v. Powell (C.A.D.C. 1981), 660 F.2d 802, 805 .

Kim v. Randal A. Lowry & Assocs.

2023 Ohio 3232 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 2023

immunity. … immunity.

Campbell v. Massucci

190 Ohio App. 3d 718 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2010

In a situation where a municipal employee responding to a fire or other qualified emergency commits a minor *729 traffic violation, the conduct of the employee may amount to negligence, yet statutory immunity would still … may be asserted to establish nonliability: {¶ 76} “ * * * {¶ 77} “(2) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the conduct of the employee involved, other than negligent conduct, that gave rise to the claim

State v. Frye

108 N.E.3d 564 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2018

to the crucial defense witness involved who is shown to be the only witness who, if believed, would clearly establish a reasonable doubt on the defendant’s guilt. … “use” immunity.

Posan v. Boyer

2025 Ohio 529 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2025

“When it has been determined that a party generally qualifies for immunity due to its status as a political subdivision, the second tier of the analysis is to determine whether one of the exceptions to immunity set forth … “Under circumstances where an exception to immunity applies, the third tier of the analysis involves a determination of whether immunity may be restored under R.C. 2744.03(A).”

Jones v. Davis

2024 Ohio 2972 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2024

By parking too close to Ance’s truck, the city truck driver created the conditions to dump garbage on Ance. {¶46} We agree that backing up the truck to park, in preparation to offload garbage, clearly constitutes … The trial court appears to have granted immunity to Davis based on its conclusion that the city is entitled to immunity.

Shoemaker v. Community Action Organization, 06ca3121 (7-16-2007)

2007 Ohio 3708 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2007

. {¶ 4} The defendants filed an answer that consisted of a general denial and several affirmative defenses but they did not raise the defense of qualified privilege. {¶ 5} Discovery consisted of one set of interrogatories … Interestingly, the memorandum in support of defendants' motion also briefly alluded to the defense of qualified immunity, even though the defendants had not raised it in their answer. {¶ 7} Shoemaker filed a memorandum contra

Durfor v. W. Mansfield Conservation Club

2022 Ohio 416 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2022

Research, the plaintiff went to a service station to fill his tires with an air pump that “was clearly marked with a sign stating ‘Free Air.’” Roesch v. Warren Distrib./Fleet Eng. … He therefore claim[ed] that he qualifie[d] as a business invitee because he [was] a prospective paying customer. Id. at ¶ 11.

Gill v. Reese

53 Ohio App. 134 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1936

The authorities are uniform in establishing the law that such a corporation is a private corporation. … If they are to establish private business then the department established to operate these businesses should answer the same as private citizens.” Peter’s Ice & Coal Co. v Kopp, dec. Aug. 9, 1935.

Rudd v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol

2016 Ohio 8263 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2016

The Court of Claims found that Prachar and Sergeant Shane, the alleged negligent state employees, were clearly engaged in the performance of a public duty for which the state was immune from liability. … relationship can be established between the state and an injured party.