Plush v. Cincinnati
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Crouse
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss in a wrongful death case arising from a 911 dispatching failure. Governmental immunity was reinstated for the City of Cincinnati and its employees in their official capacities, but the case was remanded as individual defendants may face liability for reckless conduct.
Excerpt
MUNICIPAL – IMMUNITY – R.C. CHAPTER 2744 – R.C. 128.32: In a wrongful-death case alleging that the city's operation of a faulty and inadequate 911 system caused the death of plaintiffs' son, the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss as to the city and its employees in their official capacities: the city and its employees were immune from liability under R.C. Chapter 2744 because they were engaged in a governmental function and no exceptions in R.C. 2744.02(B) applied to remove immunity. The R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) exception does not apply where the allegations in the complaint relate to the operation and maintenance of a 911 system: R.C. 128.32(A)(1) expressly imposes liability upon a political subdivision only for misconduct relating to the creation of a 911 system. The R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) exception does not apply where the complaint failed to establish that the death occurred in or on the grounds of buildings used in connection with a governmental function. The trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss as to the employees in their individual capacities: the employees were not entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) because the complaint sufficiently alleged that the employees acted in a reckless or wanton manner. [But see DISSENT: The complaint did not sufficiently allege knowledge by the officers that their conduct would in all probability result in injury as required to establish reckless or wanton conduct under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6).]
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against her joint employers, asserting sexual harassment/ hostile work environment, retaliation, and other related claims. The employers filed a motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiff opposed the motion and invoked the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, 9 U.S.C. §§ 401- -402. The trial court deemed the Act applicable and denied the motion to compel arbitration. The employers appeal. We affirm.
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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.