Title: Estate of Graves v. Circleville

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Estate of Graves v. Circleville, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-168.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-168 
ESTATE OF GRAVES, APPELLEE, v. CITY OF CIRCLEVILLE; 
SHAW ET AL., APPELLANTS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Estate of Graves v. Circleville,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-168.] 
Torts — Liability of employees of political subdivision — R.C. 2744.03 — The 
public-duty rule is not applicable in civil actions brought against 
employees of political subdivisions for wanton or reckless conduct. 
(No. 2009-0014 — Submitted November 3, 2009 — Decided January 28, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 06CA2900, 
179 Ohio App.3d 479, 2008-Ohio-6052. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
The public-duty rule adopted by this court in Sawicki v. Ottawa Hills (1988), 37 
Ohio St.3d 222, 525 N.E.2d 468, is not applicable in civil actions brought 
against employees of political subdivisions for wanton or reckless 
conduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
__________________ 
 
O’CONNOR, J. 
{¶ 1} This appeal involves the availability of the public-duty rule as a 
defense to liability of employees of a political subdivision.  Appellants, 
Circleville Police Department Officers Peter Shaw, William Eversole, and Ben 
Carpenter1 (“the officers”), assert that the public-duty rule governs the issue 
whether an employee of a political subdivision performing his job owes a duty to 
an individual member of the public.  The officers additionally argue that the 
wanton-and-reckless exception to immunity in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) is not an 
exception to, and did not repudiate, the public-duty rule. 
{¶ 2} Conversely, appellee, the estate of Jillian Marie Graves, contends 
that the public-duty rule does not protect employees of political subdivisions from 
liability for wanton and reckless misconduct.  The estate further submits that R.C. 
2744.03 abrogated the public-duty rule to the extent that the rule protects 
employees who engage in wanton and reckless conduct from liability. 
{¶ 3} We hold that the public-duty rule adopted by this court in Sawicki 
v. Ottawa Hills (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 222, 525 N.E.2d 468, is not applicable in 
civil actions brought against employees of political subdivisions for wanton or 
reckless conduct.  Because the estate alleges more than mere negligence and 
asserts that the officers acted in a wanton and reckless manner, the public-duty 
rule adopted in Sawicki is not an available defense for the officers.  We therefore 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this matter to the trial 
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
Relevant Background 
                                          
 
1.  Ben Carpenter was designated as a police officer in the pleadings and has been referred to as an 
officer throughout the proceedings below.  Carpenter clarified during his discovery deposition that 
he has never been certified as a police officer and that he was a dispatcher at the time of the events 
that occurred in this case.  However, for ease of reference, officer Shaw, officer Eversole, and 
dispatcher Carpenter will collectively be referred to as “the officers.” 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 4} This matter arises from the events leading to an automobile 
collision that resulted in the deaths of Cornelius Copley and Jillian Graves.  On 
July 4, 2003, Officer Shaw arrested Copley for driving under the influence of 
alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1) and driving under suspension in 
violation of former R.C. 4507.02(D)(2).  Copley was released from jail the 
following afternoon by Officer Eversole.  Copley returned to the police station 
later that afternoon to retrieve his vehicle.  Officer Carpenter examined the tow 
log and, finding no “hold” on Copley’s vehicle, authorized the release of Copley’s 
vehicle.  The next morning, on July 6, 2003, Copley drove his vehicle while 
intoxicated and collided with Graves’s vehicle.  Both of them were killed in the 
accident. 
{¶ 5} The estate filed suit against the officers, alleging that they had 
breached their duty to Graves by failing to remove Copley’s license plates from 
his vehicle and by releasing the vehicle to him.2  More specifically, the estate 
claimed that (1) R.C. 4507.38 required that Copley’s vehicle be held until his 
initial court appearance because he had been charged with driving on a suspended 
license and (2) R.C. 4511.195 required that Copley’s vehicle remain impounded 
because he had been convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of 
alcohol (“OMVI”) within the prior six-year period.  The estate alleged that the 
officers were aware that Copley was a recidivist drunk driver who was driving on 
a suspended license and that the officers violated the law by allowing Copley to 
obtain his vehicle from the impound lot.  The estate further alleged that the 
                                          
 
2.  Graves’s estate originally filed a complaint against the city of Circleville and John and Jane 
Doe, officers of the Circleville Police Department.  The officers were not identified before the trial 
court dismissed the complaint, holding that the officers and the city were immune. The estate 
identified the officers only after the Fourth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court had 
erred in dismissing the case against the officers because the estate had alleged sufficient facts 
supporting its claims of wanton and reckless conduct that, if proved, could overcome the officers’ 
immunity.  Estate of Graves v. Circleville, Ross App. No. 04CA2774, 2005-Ohio-929, ¶ 28.  The 
Fourth District affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the city, holding that the city was 
engaged in a governmental function and was thus immune from liability for negligence.  Id. at ¶ 1.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
officers acted wantonly, recklessly, and with complete disregard for the 
foreseeable consequences of their actions and thus were liable under R.C. Chapter 
2744. 
{¶ 6} The officers moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) they 
owed no duty to Graves under the public-duty rule and (2) they were immune 
from liability because there is no evidence that they acted wantonly or recklessly.  
The trial court did not address the public-duty rule but found that the matter was 
governed by the immunity statute, R.C. Chapter 2744.  In construing the evidence 
most strongly in the estate’s favor, the trial court determined that there was a 
genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officers acted in a wanton and 
reckless manner.  The trial court therefore denied summary judgment. 
{¶ 7} On appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, the court 
affirmed.  Estate of Graves v. Circleville, 179 Ohio App.3d 479, 2008-Ohio-6052, 
902 N.E.2d 535.  In addressing whether the officers owed a duty to Graves, the 
Fourth District found that the public-duty rule remains viable but concluded that 
the rule does not apply in the context of wanton or reckless conduct.  Id. at ¶ 23 
and 25.  The court of appeals agreed that genuine issues of material fact remained 
whether the officers acted wantonly or recklessly and whether their conduct 
proximately caused Graves’s death. 
{¶ 8} The case is now before us on our acceptance of a discretionary 
appeal to determine whether the public-duty rule bars a holding of liability against 
the officers.  Estate of Graves v. Circleville, 121 Ohio St.3d 1439, 2009-Ohio-
1638, 903 N.E.2d 1222. 
Analysis 
A. The Public-Duty Rule Adopted in Sawicki v. Ottawa Hills 
{¶ 9} In Sawicki, we adopted the public-duty rule, a doctrine that 
“originated at English common law and was particularly applied to the office of 
sheriff.”  Sawicki v. Ottawa Hills (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 222, 229, 525 N.E.2d 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
468.  Under the public-duty rule, a municipality owes a duty only to the general 
public when performing functions imposed on it by law, and therefore it is not 
liable for a breach of that duty resulting in harm to an individual absent a special 
duty owed to the injured person.  Id. at 230; Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 
Div. of State Fire Marshal, 96 Ohio St.3d 266, 2002-Ohio-4210, 773 N.E.2d 
1018, ¶ 13. 
{¶ 10} In Sawicki, we followed the New York Court of Appeals and 
adopted a special-duty exception to the public-duty rule.  Sawicki, 37 Ohio St.3d 
at 231-232, citing Cuffy v. New York (1987), 69 N.Y.2d 255, 260, 513 N.Y.S.2d 
372, 505 N.E.2d 937.  In order for the special-duty exception to apply, “the 
following elements must be shown to exist: (1) an assumption by the 
municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf 
of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s 
agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between 
the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable 
reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking.”  Id. at paragraph four of 
the syllabus.3 
B. Applicability of the Public-Duty Rule 
{¶ 11} In their first and second propositions, the officers aver that the 
wanton-and-reckless exception to immunity in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) does not 
defeat application of the public-duty rule.  The officers contend that the general 
duties established by R.C. 4507.38 and R.C. 4511.195 are owed to the public as a 
whole rather than to specific individuals.  The officers maintain that in accordance 
with the public-duty rule, they cannot be liable to the estate for a duty owed only 
to the general public.  We disagree and hold that the public-duty rule is not 
applicable in this case. 
                                          
 
3.  The estate does not assert that the special-duty exception to the public-duty rule applies in this 
case.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
1. The narrow context in which Sawicki was decided. 
{¶ 12} In determining whether the public-duty rule is an available defense 
in this case, we must review the context in which the rule was adopted.  The 
events giving rise to Sawicki occurred on September 17, 1981.  Sawicki, 37 Ohio 
St.3d at 222, 525 N.E.2d 468.  However, before this court’s opinion in Sawicki 
was issued on June 29, 1988, the General Assembly enacted the Political 
Subdivision Tort Liability Act, codified in R.C. Chapter 2744, which became 
effective on November 20, 1985.  R.C. Chapter 2744 is the General Assembly’s 
response to the judicial abrogation of common-law sovereign immunity.  Its 
manifest purpose is the preservation of the fiscal integrity of political 
subdivisions.  Wilson v. Stark Cty. Dept. of Human Servs. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 
450, 453, 639 N.E.2d 105. 
{¶ 13} In Sawicki, this court emphasized the fact that the events fell 
within the gap period between the “time when this court had, in a series of divided 
opinions, judicially abrogated the application of the doctrine of sovereign 
immunity as a defense for municipal corporations” and the enactment of R.C. 
Chapter 2744.  Sawicki, 37 Ohio St.3d at 225, 525 N.E.2d 468.  Thus, this court 
stressed that if the facts giving rise to the case had occurred after R.C. Chapter 
2744’s effective date, the immunity statute likely would have immunized the 
village of Ottawa Hills from any liability deriving from the actions of its police 
officers.  Id.  It is within this very limited context that we adopted the public-duty 
rule. 
{¶ 14} Indeed, in Wallace this court reaffirmed that Sawicki was limited 
in its application in terms of timing.  Wallace analyzed whether the public-duty 
rule was compatible with the language of R.C. Chapter 2743.  Wallace, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 266, 2002-Ohio-4210, 773 N.E.2d 1018, ¶ 19.  In answering that question, 
we specifically noted, “[W]ere we deciding this case in the same context in which 
we decided Sawicki—in an immunity vacuum and applying purely common-law 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
principles—we might be more willing to decide that the public-duty rule 
‘comport[s] with the principles of negligence’ by aiding the court in a 
determination of whether a duty imposed upon a public employee ‘may 
encompass the duty upon which negligence is premised.’  * * *  But unlike in 
Sawicki, our analysis of common-law negligence principles here is tempered by 
statutory dictates.”  (Emphasis added.)  Id. at ¶ 25. 
{¶ 15} With this limitation in mind, we held in Wallace that “[t]he public-
duty rule is incompatible with R.C. 2743.02(A)(1)’s express language requiring 
that the state’s liability in the Court of Claims be determined ‘in accordance with 
the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties.’ ”  Id. at 
paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶ 16} We further cautioned:  “Insofar as Sawicki dealt only with 
municipal liability, we have no occasion to overrule it or any of our decisions 
applying the public-duty rule to actions not brought under R.C. Chapter 2743.  
Various courts of appeals, however, have considered Sawicki (among other cases) 
to have been legislatively superseded by the General Assembly’s enactment of 
R.C. Chapter 2744.  See, e.g., Sudnik v. Crimi (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 394, 397, 
690 N.E.2d 925; Franklin v. Columbus (1998), 130 Ohio App.3d 53, 59-60, 719 
N.E.2d 592; Amborski v. Toledo (1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 47, 51, 585 N.E.2d 
974.”  (Emphasis sic.)  Wallace, 96 Ohio St.3d 266, 2006-Ohio-4210, 773 N.E.2d 
1018, ¶ 39, fn. 13.  Thus, the Wallace court explicitly recognized that Sawicki was 
decided at a time that sovereign immunity was not available as a defense and thus 
suggested that the public-duty rule may be incongruous with R.C. Chapter 2744. 
{¶ 17} Most recently, in Yates v. Mansfield Bd. of Edn., we again affirmed 
that the public-duty rule arose under narrow circumstances when distinguishing 
our decision in Brodie v. Summit Cty. Children Servs. Bd. (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 
112, 554 N.E.2d 1301, a case that arose in the same gap period as the events in 
Sawicki.  Yates, 102 Ohio St.3d 205, 2004-Ohio-2491, 808 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 32, fn. 2 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
(“Brodie, 51 Ohio St.3d 112, 554 N.E.2d 1301, arose out of events that occurred 
during that twilight period in the early 1980s when the doctrine of municipal 
immunity had been judicially abolished, R.C. Chapter 2744, 141 Ohio Laws, Part 
I, 1699, 1743, was not yet effective, and the public-duty rule was clearly 
viable”).4 
{¶ 18} Our analysis in Sawicki and its progeny lead to the conclusion that 
the public-duty rule espoused in Sawicki does not apply in the instant case.  This 
matter arose out of an incident that occurred in July 2003, well after the General 
Assembly’s enactment of R.C. Chapter 2744.  We consistently have emphasized 
the vacuum in which Sawicki was decided, and we reaffirm those pronouncements 
today. 
{¶ 19} We adopted the public-duty rule at a time when there was no 
immunity for a political subdivision or its employees.  If the immunity now 
afforded by R.C. Chapter 2744 had been a viable defense for the village of Ottawa 
Hills in Sawicki, Ottawa Hills would have been immune from the plaintiffs’ 
claims of negligence.  Sawicki, 37 Ohio St.3d at 473, 525 N.E.2d 468.  The 
public-duty rule became a relevant consideration only because Ottawa Hills did 
not have blanket immunity. 
{¶ 20} Political subdivisions and their employees now have statutory 
immunity.  Thus, the rationale behind this court’s adoption of the public-duty rule 
in Sawicki is no longer compelling.  Moreover, Sawicki did not address whether 
the public-duty rule was available as a defense for employees of a political 
subdivision, and we have never applied the rule in a case involving allegations of 
wanton and reckless conduct against an employee of a political subdivision.  
Because the events in this case occurred outside of the narrow timeframe under 
                                          
 
4.  While we noted in Yates that the public-duty rule remained viable as applied to actions brought 
against political subdivisions pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2744, that issue was not before us in Yates.  
Moreover, this court did not comment on the viability of the public-duty rule in cases against an 
employee of a political subdivision who is alleged to have acted wantonly or recklessly. 
January Term, 2010 
9 
 
which Sawicki was decided, the public-duty rule adopted in Sawicki does not 
apply. 
2. R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b)’s wanton-and-reckless exception to immunity. 
{¶ 21} Our holding adheres to our deference to valid legislative 
enactments and is consistent with R.C. Chapter 2744’s purpose.  By enacting R.C. 
Chapter 2744, the legislature clearly rejected the judicial abrogation of common-
law sovereign immunity and provided broad statutory immunity to political 
subdivisions and their employees, subject to certain exceptions.  Wilson, 70 Ohio 
St.3d at 452-453, 639 N.E.2d 105; R.C. 2744.02 et seq.  One of the stated 
exceptions is that employees of political subdivisions are not immune from 
liability when their acts or omissions are “manifestly outside the scope of the 
employee’s employment or official responsibilities,” or are taken “with malicious 
purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.”  R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(a) 
and (b).  A holding that the public-duty rule — a common-law principle — bars 
liability of an employee who allegedly has acted in a wanton or reckless manner 
would contravene an unambiguous statutory mandate and render R.C. 
2744.03(A)(6)(b) meaningless. 
{¶ 22} Our rejection of the public-duty rule in this case corresponds with 
our decision in Wallace that the public-duty rule was incompatible with R.C. 
2743.02(A)(1).  The same rationale applies in this case.  As we stated in Wallace, 
“our analysis of common-law negligence principles here is tempered by statutory 
dictates.”  Wallace, 96 Ohio St.3d 266, 2002-Ohio-4210, 773 N.E.2d 1018, at ¶ 
25.  It logically follows that application of the public-duty rule in a lawsuit against 
an employee of a political subdivision who is alleged to have acted wantonly or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
recklessly is tempered by the legislative dictate in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) that an 
employee who acts wantonly or recklessly has no immunity.5  
3. Preservation of public policy. 
{¶ 23} Our determination that the public-duty rule is inapplicable to 
lawsuits alleging wanton and reckless conduct against political subdivision 
employees preserves the public policy that justified our adoption of the rule – 
maintaining the integrity of public finance and the necessity of avoiding judicial 
intervention into policy decisions.  Wallace, 96 Ohio St.3d 266, 2002-Ohio-4210, 
773 N.E.2d 1018, at ¶ 32.  The General Assembly, however, legislatively sets 
forth the public policy of this state.  That policy, as expressed in R.C. Chapter 
2744, permits suits against employees of political subdivisions who engage in 
wanton and reckless conduct.  As we noted in Wallace, we will not “engraft the 
public-duty rule as an additional limitation on liability that the General Assembly 
has not provided.”  Wallace, 96 Ohio St.3d 266, 2002-Ohio-4210, 773 N.E.2d 
1018, at ¶ 33.  This rationale is even more appropriate here because application of 
the rule would directly contravene the legislature’s expressed policy.  “It is not 
this court's role to apply a judicially created doctrine when faced with statutory 
language that cuts against its applicability.”  (Emphasis sic.)  Id. 
{¶ 24} Finally, it bears emphasis that like our rejection of the public-duty 
rule’s application to suits in the Court of Claims in Wallace, our rejection of the 
doctrine in this case “does not automatically open the floodgates to excessive 
                                          
 
5.  Several other jurisdictions reject the application of the public-duty rule when allegations of 
wanton, reckless, or egregious conduct are alleged.  The Tennessee Supreme Court does not apply 
the public-duty rule in cases involving allegations of reckless conduct.  Ezell v. Cockrell 
(Tenn.1995), 902 S.W.2d 394, 402.  In Rhode Island, an exception to the public-duty doctrine 
exists when the state or its political subdivisions engage in egregious conduct.  L.A. Ray Realty v. 
Town Council of Cumberland (R.I.1997), 698 A.2d 202, 208.  A similar exception to the public-
duty rule is recognized by the Connecticut Supreme Court if the complaint alleges malice, 
wantonness, or intent to injure rather than negligence.  Gordon v. Bridgeport Hous. Auth. (1988), 
208 Conn. 161, 167, 544 A.2d 1185, citing Shore v. Stonington (1982), 187 Conn. 147, 155, 444 
A.2d 1379, and Stiebitz v. Mahoney (1957), 144 Conn. 443, 448-49, 134 A.2d 71. 
 
January Term, 2010 
11 
 
governmental liability.”  Id. at ¶ 37.  The absence of the public-duty rule will not 
automatically result in the creation of new duties and new causes of action.  Id.  
Claimants who seek recovery in actions such as the present one based on purely 
statutory violations must still establish that the statute in question provides for a 
private right of action.  Id. 
{¶ 25} By way of example, in the present case, the estate must 
demonstrate that recovery is permissible against the officers for violating either 
R.C. 4507.38 or R.C. 4511.195.  In other words, even though the public-duty rule 
does not repudiate the existence of a duty, the estate nevertheless has the burden 
of establishing that the officers owed Graves an actionable duty under R.C. 
4507.38 and/or R.C. 4511.195.6   If a claimant cannot establish the existence of a 
duty, the political subdivision’s employee is insulated from liability even in the 
face of allegations of wanton and reckless conduct.  We believe that the public-
policy objectives in adopting the public-duty rule remain safeguarded in the wake 
of this court’s ruling. 
{¶ 26} In summary, the public-duty rule adopted by this court in Sawicki 
does not apply to the case at bar.  The public-duty rule adopted in Sawicki is 
restricted in its application and is not an available defense to the estate’s claims 
that the officers acted wantonly and recklessly by allowing Copley to retrieve his 
vehicle. 
C. Abrogation of the Public-Duty Rule 
{¶ 27} In their third proposition, the officers urge this court to hold that 
the public-duty rule remains viable and has not been abrogated by the enactment 
of R.C. Chapter 2744 and its exception for wanton and reckless conduct.  This 
                                          
 
6.  Because this appeal only presents us with the narrow legal issue of whether the public-duty rule 
is applicable, we express no opinion regarding whether an actionable duty was owed by the 
officers or whether their conduct was wanton or reckless.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
proposition is rendered moot by virtue of our resolution of the first and second 
propositions of law. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 28} For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the public-duty rule 
adopted by this court in Sawicki v. Ottawa Hills (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 222, 525 
N.E.2d 468, is not applicable in civil actions brought against employees of 
political subdivisions for wanton or reckless conduct.  The estate alleges more 
than mere negligence and claims that the officers acted in a wanton and reckless 
manner.  The public-duty doctrine adopted in Sawicki is therefore not available as 
a defense for the officers in the case sub judice.  We affirm the judgment of the 
court of appeals and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings 
consistent with this court’s opinion. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs separately. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurring. 
{¶ 29} I concur in the syllabus and in most of the majority opinion.  I am 
especially pleased that the majority opinion has limited the application of the 
public-duty doctrine as enunciated in Sawicki v. Ottawa Hills (1988), 37 Ohio 
St.3d 222, 525 N.E.2d 468, to a time and place now in the past.  See Wallace v. 
Ohio Dept. of Commerce, Div. of State Fire Marshall, 96 Ohio St.3d 266, 2002-
Ohio-4210, 773 N.E.2d 1018,  ¶ 42 (Douglas, J., concurring) (the public-duty rule 
"has no efficacy or relevance in Ohio").  I look forward to the day when a 
majority of this court will say the same concerning sovereign immunity.  See Doe 
v. Marlington Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio St.3d 12, 2009-Ohio-
January Term, 2010 
13 
 
1360, 907 N.E.2d 706, ¶ 38-40 (Pfeifer, J., dissenting); Garrett v. Sandusky 
(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 139, 144, 624 N.E.2d 704 (Pfeifer, J., concurring). 
{¶ 30} I do not join in section B3 of the majority opinion because it is not 
necessary to the resolution of the issue before us.  Having determined that the 
public-duty doctrine is not applicable to the case before us, this court should not 
discuss other issues that might be applicable to the case.  The parties and the trial 
judge need to concern themselves with the issues to be argued in the trial that will 
likely take place; we should not. 
__________________ 
 
Cooper & Elliott, L.L.C., Rex H. Elliott, Charles H. Cooper Jr., and John 
C. Camillus, for appellee. 
Mazanec, Raskin, Ryder & Keller Co., L.P.A., John T. McLandrich, 
James A. Climer, and Frank H. Scialdone, for appellants. 
 
Joseph M. Hegedus, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Patrolmen’s 
Benevolent Association. 
 
Subashi & Wildermuth, Brian L. Wildermuth, and Halli J. Brownfield, 
urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys. 
 
Isaac, Brant, Ledman and Teetor, L.L.P., Mark Landes, and Andrew N. 
Yosowitz, urging reversal for amici curiae County Commissioners’ Association of 
Ohio, Ohio School Boards Association, Public Children Services Association of 
Ohio, Ohio Job and Family Services Directors’ Association of Ohio, County Risk 
Sharing Authority, Ohio Township Association, and Ohio Association of 
Behavioral Health Authorities. 
 
Kitrick, Lewis & Harris Co., L.P.A., and Mark M. Kitrick, urging 
affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association for Justice. 
______________________