five exceptions immunity in Ohio

2025This immunity applies whether the actions or omissions by the Clerk were connected with "proprietary functions" or "governmental functions." R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). {¶ 27} "The second tier of the analysis focuses on the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B), which can expose the political subdivision to liability." Smith v. McBride, 2011-Ohio-4674, ¶ 14 .

2024"The second tier of the analysis focuses on the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B), which can expose the political subdivision to liability." Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 , 2011-Ohio-4674, ¶ 14 .

2024Doe v. Greenville City School, 171 Ohio St.3d 763 , 2022-Ohio-4618, ¶ 10 , citing Hill v. Urbana, 79 Ohio St.3d 130 (1997). {¶ 25} The second tier of analysis requires a court to determine if any of the five exceptions to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B) are applicable to reinstate liability to the political subdivision.

2023As previously mentioned, the exception to immunity contained in R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) provides that “a political subdivision is liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to persons or property caused by an act or omission of the political subdivision or any of its employees in connection with the performance of a proprietary function.” Hill v. Urbana, 79 Ohio St.3d 130 , 679 N.E.2d 1109 (1997), paragraph one of the syllabus.

2014Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24, 28 , 1998-Ohio-421 , 697 N.E.2d 610 . {¶12} “The second tier of the analysis requires a court to determine whether any of the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) apply to expose the political subdivision to liability.” Id. at 28.

2013R.C. 2744.02(B); Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24, 28 , 1998-Ohio-421 , 697 N.E.2d 610 . {¶22} “The second tier of the analysis requires a court to determine whether any of the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) apply to expose the political subdivision to liability.” Id. at 28.

2019If any of the exceptions to immunity are applicable, thereby exposing the political subdivision to liability, the third tier of the 9 analysis assesses whether any of the defenses to liability contained in R.C. 2744.03 apply to reinstate immunity.” Id. at ¶9, citing Elston, supra, at ¶11-12 . {¶37} “Immunity is also extended to individual employees of political subdivisions.” Id. at ¶10, citing R.C. 2744.03(A)(6), O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 , 2008-Ohio-2574 , ¶47, Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 113 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2007-Ohio- 1946, ¶17, and Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 70 Oh

2012Id. at ¶ 23-25, quoting Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 113 Ohio St. 266 , 2007-Ohio-1946 , 865 N.E.2d 9 . {¶24} Beginning with the first tier, the City is generally immune from liability.

2022“Wanton 1 We note that the three-tiered analysis used to determine political subdivision immunity, pursuant to R.C. 2744.02, is different from the standard used to determine whether an employee of a political subdivision has immunity, which is codified in R.C. 2744.03. 18 misconduct is the failure to exercise any care toward those to whom a duty of care is owed in circumstances in which there is great probability that harm will result.” Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶52} If any one of the five exceptions to immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B) applies and if any defenses that may be asserted

2021“Wanton misconduct is the failure to exercise any care toward those to whom a duty of care is owed in circumstances in which there is great probability that harm will result.” Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶12} If any one of the five exceptions to immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B) applies and if any defenses that may be asserted by the political subdivision under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) do not apply, then the court’s analysis proceeds to the third tier.

2019“A general grant of immunity is provided within the first tier, which states that ‘a political subdivision is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a governmental or proprietary function.’” Id., quoting R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). {¶36} “The second tier in the immunity analysis focuses on the five exceptions to this immunity, which are listed in R.C. 2744.02(B).

2008Id. at 556-557 ; R.C. 2744.02 (A)(1). * * * {¶ 28} "The second tier of the analysis requires a court to determine whether any of the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02 (B) apply to expose the political *Page 9 subdivision to liability. [ Cater , supra,] at 28 .

2018Elston v. Howland Local Schools , 113 Ohio St.3d 314 , 2007-Ohio-2070 , 865 N.E.2d 845 , ¶ 10 ; see also Hortman v. Miamisburg , 110 Ohio St.3d 194 , 2006-Ohio-4251 , 852 N.E.2d 716 , ¶ 12. {¶ 18} Once immunity is generally established, "the second tier of analysis is whether any of the five exceptions to immunity in subsection (B) apply." Id. at ¶ 12.

2018Elston v. Howland Local Schools , 113 Ohio St.3d 314 , 2007-Ohio-2070 , 865 N.E.2d 845 , ¶ 10 ; see also Hortman v. Miamisburg , 110 Ohio St.3d 194 , 2006-Ohio-4251 , 852 N.E.2d 716 , ¶ 12. {¶ 18} Once immunity is generally established, "the second tier of analysis is whether any of the five exceptions to immunity in subsection (B) apply." Id. at ¶ 12.

2024"If any of the exceptions to immunity are applicable, thereby exposing the political subdivision to liability, the third tier of the analysis assesses whether any of the defenses to liability contained in R.C. 2744.03 apply to reinstate immunity." Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2010-Ohio-1483, ¶ 9 . {¶ 16} With regard to the first tier of the analysis, R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) provides: For the purposes of this chapter, the functions of political subdivisions are hereby classified as governmental functions and proprietary functions.

2024"If any of the exceptions to immunity are applicable, thereby exposing the political subdivision to liability, the third tier of the analysis assesses whether any of the defenses to liability contained in R.C. 2744.03 apply to reinstate immunity." Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2010-Ohio-1483, ¶ 9 . {¶ 16} With regard to the first tier of the analysis, R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) provides: For the purposes of this chapter, the functions of political subdivisions are hereby classified as governmental functions and proprietary functions.

2022R.C. 2744.02(B); Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24, 28 , 697 N.E.2d 610 (1998)[ (lead opinion), abrogated by M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 134 Ohio St.3d 65 , 2012-Ohio-5336 , 979 N.E.2d 1261 .] 12 January Term, 2022 “The second tier of the analysis requires a court to determine whether any of the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) apply to expose the political subdivision to liability.

2022R.C. 2744.02(B); Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24, 28 , 697 N.E.2d 610 (1998)[ (lead opinion), abrogated by M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 134 Ohio St.3d 65 , 2012-Ohio-5336 , 979 N.E.2d 1261 .] 12 January Term, 2022 “The second tier of the analysis requires a court to determine whether any of the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) apply to expose the political subdivision to liability.

2018Disabilities , 151 Ohio App.3d 234 , 2002-Ohio-7299 , 783 N.E.2d 959 , ¶ 13 (6th Dist.) ; Dolan v. Glouster , 173 Ohio App.3d 617 , 2007-Ohio-6275 , 879 N.E.2d 838 , ¶ 17 (4th Dist.) ; see also Gotherman & Babbit, Ohio Municipal Law (2d Ed.1992), Section 32.4 ("The defenses and immunities provided to a political subdivision by R.C. 2744.03(A) only become relevant if one of the five exceptions to immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B) applies to render the subdivision vulnerable to liability"). {¶ 19} If an exception to the general immunity provision does apply, "under the third tier of analysis, immunity

2018Disabilities , 151 Ohio App.3d 234 , 2002-Ohio-7299 , 783 N.E.2d 959 , ¶ 13 (6th Dist.) ; Dolan v. Glouster , 173 Ohio App.3d 617 , 2007-Ohio-6275 , 879 N.E.2d 838 , ¶ 17 (4th Dist.) ; see also Gotherman & Babbit, Ohio Municipal Law (2d Ed.1992), Section 32.4 ("The defenses and immunities provided to a political subdivision by R.C. 2744.03(A) only become relevant if one of the five exceptions to immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B) applies to render the subdivision vulnerable to liability"). {¶ 19} If an exception to the general immunity provision does apply, "under the third tier of analysis, immunity

2009As noted in Rankin , "as the special-relationship exception is not codified in R.C. 2744.02 (B) * * * it is therefore not an independent exception to a political subdivision's general immunity from liability." Id. {¶ 9} This assignment of error is well-taken and the matter is reversed as to the Department of Children and Family Services. *Page 6 {¶ 10} The first assignment of error is well-taken. {¶ 11} In the second and third assignments of error, defendants assert that the trial court erred in denying immunity to social worker Elizabeth McGovern as a witness in a judicial proceeding in conne

2008Rankin, 118 Ohio St.3d 392 , 2008-Ohio-2567 , 889 N.E.2d 521, ¶ 18 ; Cater, 83 Ohio St.3d at 28 , 697 N.E.2d 610 .

2025“That immunity, however, is not absolute.” McConnell v. Dudley, 2019-Ohio-4740, ¶ 21 . {¶ 93} “The second tier of the sovereign-immunity analysis involves determining -41- whether any of the five exceptions to immunity that are listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) apply to expose the political subdivision to liability.” Id. at ¶ 22, citing Pelletier v. Campbell, 2018- Ohio-2121, ¶ 15.

2024Pelletier [v. Campbell, 2018-Ohio-2121 ,] ¶ 15.

2024Doe v. Greenville City School, 171 Ohio St.3d 763 , 2022-Ohio-4618, ¶ 10 , citing Hill v. Urbana, 79 Ohio St.3d 130 (1997). {¶ 25} The second tier of analysis requires a court to determine if any of the five exceptions to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B) are applicable to reinstate liability to the political subdivision.

2024Doe v. Greenville City School, 171 Ohio St.3d 763 , 2022-Ohio-4618, ¶ 10 , citing Hill v. Urbana, 79 Ohio St.3d 130 (1997). {¶ 25} The second tier of analysis requires a court to determine if any of the five exceptions to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B) are applicable to reinstate liability to the political subdivision.

2023Id. at ¶ 23. {¶17} “‘Under the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, immunity is an affirmative defense.’” Deitz, 2017-Ohio-2917, at ¶ 20 , quoting Green, 2016-Ohio- 826, at ¶ 18. “‘Accordingly, the burden of proof is on the political subdivision to -9- Case No. 1-22-34 establish general immunity.’” Id., quoting Green at ¶ 18 .

2023Id. at ¶ 23. {¶17} “‘Under the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, immunity is an affirmative defense.’” Deitz, 2017-Ohio-2917, at ¶ 20 , quoting Green, 2016-Ohio- 826, at ¶ 18. “‘Accordingly, the burden of proof is on the political subdivision to -9- Case No. 1-22-34 establish general immunity.’” Id., quoting Green at ¶ 18 .

2019No. 22702, 2006-Ohio-2411, ¶ 62 . “[O]nce immunity has been established pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), we turn to the five exceptions to immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)- (5) to determine if they apply.” Lindsey at ¶ 28 .

2019“Only after a determination that an exception to immunity applies do we turn to any of the defenses in R.C. 2744.03.” Id. {¶13} In the motion for summary judgment, CSB, Mr. Saros, Ms. Klapper, Ms. Averell, and Ms. Baad argued that CSB was immune pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) and that none of the exceptions in R.C. 2744.02(B) applied.

2019If any of the exceptions to immunity are applicable, thereby exposing the political subdivision to liability, the third tier of the 9 analysis assesses whether any of the defenses to liability contained in R.C. 2744.03 apply to reinstate immunity.” Id. at ¶9, citing Elston, supra, at ¶11-12 . {¶37} “Immunity is also extended to individual employees of political subdivisions.” Id. at ¶10, citing R.C. 2744.03(A)(6), O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 , 2008-Ohio-2574 , ¶47, Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 113 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2007-Ohio- 1946, ¶17, and Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 70 Oh

2017Franklin No. 15AP-602, 2016-Ohio-826 , 2016 WL 853272 , ¶ 18, citing Slane v. Hilliard , 2016-Ohio-306 , 59 N.E.3d 545 , ¶ 30, citing Jones v. Lucas Metro.

2017Franklin No. 15AP-602, 2016-Ohio-826 , 2016 WL 853272 , ¶ 18, citing Slane v. Hilliard , 2016-Ohio-306 , 59 N.E.3d 545 , ¶ 30, citing Jones v. Lucas Metro.

2012Butler v. Jordan, 92 Ohio St.3d 354 , 2001-Ohio-204 , 750 N.E.2d 554 , paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. {¶17} Therefore, by application of the foregoing, none of the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) apply herein to expose the EFS to liability, and it is therefore immune as a matter of law. {¶18} As to the issue of the liability of the individual employees, we note that R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) provides that an employee is personally immune from liability unless: (a) The employee’s acts or omissions were manifestly outside the scope of the employee’s employment or official

2012Butler v. Jordan, 92 Ohio St.3d 354 , 2001-Ohio-204 , 750 N.E.2d 554 , paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. {¶17} Therefore, by application of the foregoing, none of the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) apply herein to expose the EFS to liability, and it is therefore immune as a matter of law. {¶18} As to the issue of the liability of the individual employees, we note that R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) provides that an employee is personally immune from liability unless: (a) The employee’s acts or omissions were manifestly outside the scope of the employee’s employment or official