Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio does not recognize a tort cause of action for negligent misidentification, concluding that recognizing such a claim would contravene public policy favoring the reporting of crime. Because no such cause of action exists, the court declined to answer the three certified questions concerning the statute of limitations and privilege doctrines, deeming them moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Ohio recognizes a tort cause of action for negligent misidentification.
- If negligent misidentification exists, what statute of limitations applies.
- If negligent misidentification exists, whether absolute privilege applies to statements implicating another person in criminal activity, including statements to law-enforcement officers.
- If negligent misidentification exists, whether qualified privilege applies.
Holdings
- Ohio does not recognize a cause of action in tort for negligent misidentification.
- The certified questions concerning the statute of limitations and absolute and qualified privileges are moot and should not be answered.
Key quotations
“For the reasons that follow, we conclude that a plaintiff does not have a cause of action in tort for negligent misidentification and that it would contravene public policy to allow such a claim.” (¶ 2)
“Recognizing the tort of negligent misidentification, however, would diminish the tort of malicious prosecution to a mere negligence action and in turn would expose the victim of a crime or an eyewitness to civil liability for an honest mistake, thereby turning victims of crime and eyewitnesses into “guarantors of the accuracy of their identifications.”” (¶ 14)
“We conclude that there is no cause of action in Ohio for the tort of negligent misidentification. Accordingly, we decline to answer the questions of law certified by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, because they are moot.” (¶ 18)
Factual background
On March 14, 2013, Evan Foley, Andrew Foley, and Michael Fagans knocked on the door of a University of Dayton campus townhouse, allegedly angering occupant Michael Groff. Groff called police, and the three respondents were arrested for burglary. The charges against Andrew Foley and Fagans were later dismissed, while Evan Foley's charge was resolved; the respondents then asserted negligence claims against Groff and his roommate Dylan Parfitt based on the alleged misidentification.
Procedural history
The respondents sued Groff and Parfitt in federal court for negligence after they were arrested following Groff's report to police. The petitioners moved for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, certification of state-law questions. The federal district court certified three questions, and the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted them but declined to answer them after determining that Ohio recognizes no tort of negligent misidentification.