Skip to main content

Alcus v. Bainbridge Twp.

Ohio Ct. App.February 18, 2020No. 2019-G-0205Cited 5 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

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

**What Happened:** An employee named Alcus was injured while working for Bainbridge Township and sued the township and another employee (Mr. Bularz) for negligence and reckless misconduct. The township argued it couldn't be sued because government employers have special legal protections called "governmental immunity" that shield them from most lawsuits. The lower court agreed with the township and dismissed the case without a trial. **What the Court Decided:** The appeals court disagreed and reversed the dismissal. The court found that the township's immunity protection didn't apply in this situation because the work being done fell under "proprietary functions" - activities that private businesses also perform, rather than typical government duties. The court also determined there were genuine questions about whether the defendants acted recklessly that needed to be decided at trial. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling is significant because it shows that government employees aren't automatically blocked from suing their employers when injured. While government employers do have special legal protections, there are exceptions. When a government agency performs work similar to what private companies do, and when there's evidence of reckless behavior, injured workers may still have valid legal claims that deserve their day in court.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

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.