Alcus v. Bainbridge Twp.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Trapp
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Township and Mr. Bularz on immunity grounds, finding that plaintiffs established an exception to governmental immunity under the proprietary function doctrine and raised genuine issues of material fact regarding recklessness. Case remanded for trial.
Excerpt
CIVIL - summary judgment Civ.R. 56 political subdivision immunity R.C. Chapter 2744 personal injury governmental and proprietary functions exceptions to immunity negligent performance of proprietary functions R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) specific activity that caused injury maintenance of public grounds regulating the use of public grounds R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(e) public peace, health, safety or welfare not customarily engaged in by nongovernmental persons R.C. 2744.01(C)(1)(c) obligation of sovereignty R.C. 2744.01(C)(1)(a) common good of all citizens of the state R.C. 2744.01(C)(1)(b) physical defect R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) defense to liability exercise of judgment or discretion R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) inadvertence, inattention, or unobservance employee of political subdivision individual capacity wanton or reckless manner R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) issue of fact.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.