governmental function immunity in Ohio

2026“The statutory phrase ‘including, but not limited to’ means that the examples expressly given are ‘a nonexhaustive list of examples.’” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Anderson, 2014-Ohio-542, ¶ 45 , quoting State v. Muncie, 91 Ohio St.3d 440, 448 (2001) 9. {¶ 23} Reviewing the parties’ arguments and the relevant statutory and case law, under the present facts SAJRD’s operation of the pickleball courts is a governmental function for which immunity attaches.

2026For example, in Mueller v. N. Canton, 2012-Ohio-3561 (5th Dist.), the court determined that the operation of a public golf course is a governmental function for which immunity applies and in Contreraz v. Bettsville, 2011-Ohio-4178 (3d Dist.), immunity applied to the operation of a public swimming area in a quarry.

2026For example, in Mueller v. N. Canton, 2012-Ohio-3561 (5th Dist.), the court determined that the operation of a public golf course is a governmental function for which immunity applies and in Contreraz v. Bettsville, 2011-Ohio-4178 (3d Dist.), immunity applied to the operation of a public swimming area in a quarry.

2022“Municipal decisions regarding updating or upgrading, rather than simple maintenance and repair of existing systems have been held to be a governmental function to which immunity applies.” Matter v. Athens, 4th Dist. No. 13CA20, 21 N.E.3d 595 , 2014-Ohio-4451 , ¶ 22, citing Essman v. Portsmouth, 4th Dist. No. 09CA3325, 2010-Ohio-4837, ¶ 46 . “[A] political subdivision's decision regarding an upgrade of its sewer system [or water supply system] is a governmental function.

2015Cuyahoga No. 91991, 2009-Ohio-1786 . {¶ 21} We find the trial court erred in applying the governmental function immunity to appellants' claim of negligent maintenance simply because the storm drain was allegedly -7- Clinton CA2014-03-005 obstructed by debris from the sidewalk improvement project, a governmental function.

2012Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 549 , 605 N.E.2d 378 , 381(1992). {¶24} If a municipality negligently causes damage while engaging in a governmental function its immunity remains intact, but if it does so while engaging in a proprietary function its immunity falters.

2011Moreover, as relevant to this case, in Hall-Pearson this court specifically found that “the training of police is a governmental function to which immunity attaches.” Hence, under the three-step analysis set forth above, we must determine whether any of the exceptions to immunity apply to appellees’ causes of action. {¶ 28} It is apparent that none of the exceptions to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B) impose liability for the training of a police force (appellees’ second and third causes of action), the supervision of a police force or the operation of its communication system (appellees’

2011Moreover, as relevant to this case, in Hall-Pearson this court specifically found that “the training of police is a governmental function to which immunity attaches.” Hence, under the three-step analysis set forth above, we must determine whether any of the exceptions to immunity apply to appellees’ causes of action. {¶ 28} It is apparent that none of the exceptions to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B) impose liability for the training of a police force (appellees’ second and third causes of action), the supervision of a police force or the operation of its communication system (appellees’

2011Moreover, as relevant to this case, in Hall-Pearson this court specifically found that “the training of police is a governmental function to which immunity attaches.” Hence, under the three-step analysis set forth above, we must determine whether any of the exceptions to immunity apply to appellees’ causes of action. {¶ 28} It is apparent that none of the exceptions to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B) impose liability for the training of a police force (appellees’ second and third causes of action), the supervision of a police force or the operation of its communication system (appellees’

2011Moreover, as relevant to this case, in Hall-Pearson this court specifically found that “the training of police is a governmental function to which immunity attaches.” Hence, under the three-step analysis set forth above, we must determine whether any of the exceptions to immunity apply to appellees’ causes of action. {¶ 28} It is apparent that none of the exceptions to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B) impose liability for the training of a police force (appellees’ second and third causes of action), the supervision of a police force or the operation of its communication system (appellees’