general grant immunity in Ohio

2025First, the party alleging immunity enjoys a general grant of immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), which provides 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).

2025“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).

2023Under the third tier of our analysis, we must then examine “whether any defenses in R.C. 2744.03 apply to reinstate immunity.” Id. at ¶ 12. 15, citing Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 , 2003-Ohio-3319 , 790 N.E.2d 781, ¶ 9 . {¶ 34} In this case, appellant does not dispute that appellees are entitled to the general grant of immunity under the first tier.

2023Under the third tier of our analysis, we must then examine “whether any defenses in R.C. 2744.03 apply to reinstate immunity.” Id. at ¶ 12. 15, citing Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 , 2003-Ohio-3319 , 790 N.E.2d 781, ¶ 9 . {¶ 34} In this case, appellant does not dispute that appellees are entitled to the general grant of immunity under the first tier.

2008The Supreme Court in Elston v. Howland Local Schools, 113 Ohio St.3d 314 , 2007-Ohio-2070 , 865 N.E.2d 845 , explained as follows: {¶ 10} “The first tier provides a general grant of immunity, stating 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 *472 governmental or proprietary function.’ R.C. 2744.02(A)(1).

2008The Supreme Court in Elston v. Howland Local Schools, 113 Ohio St.3d 314 , 2007-Ohio-2070 , 865 N.E.2d 845 , explained as follows: {¶ 10} “The first tier provides a general grant of immunity, stating 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 *472 governmental or proprietary function.’ R.C. 2744.02(A)(1).

2024“That immunity, however, is not absolute.” McConnell v. Dudley, 158 Ohio St.3d 388 , 2019-Ohio-4740, ¶ 21 . {¶11} “Under the second tier of the analysis, a political subdivision’s ‘comprehensive immunity can be abrogated pursuant to any of the five exceptions set forth at R.C. 2744.02(B).’” Bevelacqua at ¶ 11 , quoting Shalkhauser v. Medina, 148 Ohio App.3d 41, 46 (9th Dist.2002).

2023“The first tier of the sovereign-immunity analysis involves the general grant of immunity to political subdivisions by R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) * * * .” McConnell v. Dudley, 158 Ohio St.3d 388 , 2019-Ohio-4740, ¶ 21 .

2006Id. at ¶ 20, citing Carpenter, 135 Ohio App.3d 316 , 733 N.E.2d 1196 , citing Hill v. Urbana (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 130 , 679 N.E.2d 1109 .

2006Id. at ¶ 20, citing Carpenter, 135 Ohio App.3d 316 , 733 N.E.2d 1196 , citing Hill v. Urbana (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 130 , 679 N.E.2d 1109 .

2022R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) establishes a general grant of immunity to political subdivisions, with potential exceptions “when civil liability is expressly imposed upon the political subdivision by a section of the Revised Code.” Riffle v. Physicians & Surgeons Ambulance Serv., Inc., 135 Ohio St.3d 357 , 2013-Ohio-989 , 986 N.E.2d 983, ¶ 22 , quoting R.C. 2744.02(B)(5).

2022R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) establishes a general grant of immunity to political subdivisions, with potential exceptions “when civil liability is expressly imposed upon the political subdivision by a section of the Revised Code.” Riffle v. Physicians & Surgeons Ambulance Serv., Inc., 135 Ohio St.3d 357 , 2013-Ohio-989 , 986 N.E.2d 983, ¶ 22 , quoting R.C. 2744.02(B)(5).

2022Lorain No. 13CA010335, 2014-Ohio-969, ¶ 10 , citing Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24, 28 (1998). {¶50} The first tier involves the general grant of immunity to political subdivisions by R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), which provides 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.’” McConnell v. Dudley, 158 Ohio St.3d 388 , 2019-Ohio- 4740, ¶ 21, quoting R.C.

2021Under the third tier, “immunity may be restored, and the political subdivision will not be liable, if one of the defenses enumerated in R.C. 2744.03(A) applies.” Id. {¶12} It is undisputed that the City was entitled to a general grant of immunity under the first tier of the three-tiered analysis.

2020Physical-Defect Exception to Immunity {¶13} The physical-defect exception to immunity abrogates the general grant of immunity afforded political subdivisions engaged in a governmental activity only if an injury, death, or loss “(1) resulted from employee negligence, (2) occurred within or on the grounds of buildings used in connection with a governmental function, and (3) resulted from a physical defect within or on the grounds of buildings used in connection with a governmental function.” R.K., 2013-Ohio-4939 , 1 N.E.3d 833 , at ¶ 15.

2019I., 2013-Ohio-4939 , 1 N.E.3d 833 , at ¶ 8. {¶11} We concluded, based on the allegations, that the Park District was entitled to the general grant of immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) because it is a political subdivision and was engaged in a governmental function—the operation of a golf course— in connection with Ryan’s injury.

2006Id. at ¶ 20, citing Carpenter, 135 Ohio App.3d 316 , 733 N.E.2d 1196 , citing Hill v. Urbana (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 130 , 679 N.E.2d 1109 .

2006Id. at ¶ 20, citing Carpenter, 135 Ohio App.3d 316 , 733 N.E.2d 1196 , citing Hill v. Urbana (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 130 , 679 N.E.2d 1109 .

2020The first tier concerns "the general grant of immunity" pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), "which provides 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.

2013Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 , 2011-Ohio-4674 , 955 N.E.2d 954 , ¶ 13.

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

2013O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 , 2008-Ohio-2574 , 889 N.E.2d 505 .

2007Hubbard , 2002-Ohio-6718 .

2003Former R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) (“R.C. 2744.02[B][4]”), pertinent to plaintiffs action, provides that political subdivisions are liable for loss to persons “that is caused by the negligence of their employees and that occurs within or on the grounds of buildings that are used in connection with the performance of a governmental function, including, but not limited to, office buildings and courthouses, but not including jails, places of juvenile detention, workhouses, or any other detention facility, as defined in R.C. 2921.01 of the Revised Code.” {¶ 9} Very recently, and subsequent to the trial cou

2002Unity Police Dept. (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 478, 483 , 713 N.E.2d 436 , the Sixth District Court of Appeals set forth a three-tier analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is entitled to immunity. {¶ 14} The first tier, pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), sets forth the general grant of immunity for political subdivisions and provides: {¶ 15} “(A)(1) * * * [A] political subdivision is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by an act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision

2002Unity Police Dept . (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 478 , 483." The court then proceeded to the second tier, R.C. 2744.02 (B), which enumerates five exceptions to the general grant of immunity contained in R.C. 2744.02 (A).