Allen v. Lewis

Summary

The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the denial of summary judgment motions filed by two Franklin County Juvenile Intervention Center employees. The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the employees acted recklessly, which would defeat political-subdivision employee immunity under Ohio Revised Code 2744.03(A)(6)(b). The court also held that its interlocutory jurisdiction was limited to the statutory-immunity issue and did not extend to proximate cause or primary assumption of risk.

Holdings

1. An order denying a political-subdivision employee the benefit of alleged statutory immunity is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2744.02(C), even though a denial of summary judgment ordinarily is not immediately appealable.
2. Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue of material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds can reach only a conclusion adverse to the nonmoving party; the moving party bears the initial burden of identifying record evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue.
3. A party seeking summary judgment on statutory immunity bears the initial summary-judgment burden of identifying record evidence showing the absence of a material fact, but does not have an affirmative burden to prove that the statutory exception for malicious, bad-faith, wanton, or reckless conduct does not apply.
4. Summary judgment for Sumney on statutory immunity was improper because the evidence, construed in Allen and Washington's favor, would permit a factfinder to find that Sumney acted recklessly.
5. Summary judgment for Lewis on statutory immunity was improper because the evidence, construed in Allen and Washington's favor, would permit a factfinder to find that Lewis acted recklessly.
6. The court lacked jurisdiction in this interlocutory appeal to review Lewis's arguments concerning proximate cause and primary assumption of risk because those issues were not related to the denial of statutory immunity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the denial of the appellants' summary-judgment motions was a final, appealable order under R.C. 2744.02(C) because it denied them the benefit of alleged statutory immunity.
2. Whether the trial court improperly placed on Lewis and Sumney the burden of affirmatively proving that the exception to employee immunity for malicious, bad-faith, wanton, or reckless conduct did not apply.
3. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether Sumney acted recklessly, thereby defeating summary judgment on statutory immunity.
4. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether Lewis acted recklessly, thereby defeating summary judgment on statutory immunity.
5. Whether the appellate court could review Lewis's proximate-cause and primary-assumption-of-risk arguments in an appeal limited to the denial of statutory immunity.

Disposition

affirmed