Title: Butler v. Jordan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Butler v. Jordan, 92 Ohio St.3d 354, 2001-Ohio-204.] 
 
 
BUTLER, APPELLEE, v. JORDAN ET AL.; CUYAHOGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 
HUMAN SERVICES, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as Butler v. Jordan (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 354.] 
Political subdivision tort liability — Within meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5), R.C. 
5104.11 does not expressly impose liability on a political subdivision for 
failure to inspect or for the negligent certification of a type-B family day-
care home — Within meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5), no other section of 
the Revised Code imposes liability on a political subdivision for failure 
to inspect or for the negligent certification of a type-B family day-care 
home. 
(No. 99-1816 — Submitted September 12, 2000 — Decided July 25, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 74509. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
1.  Within the meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5), R.C. 5104.11 does not expressly 
impose liability on a political subdivision for failure to inspect or for the 
negligent certification of a type-B family day-care home even where the 
political subdivision has completely ignored the obligations imposed upon 
it by the statute. 
2.  Within the meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5), no other section of the Revised 
Code expressly imposes liability on a political subdivision for failure to 
inspect or for the negligent certification of a type-B family day-care home. 
__________________ 
 
DOUGLAS, J.  According to appellee’s complaint, Geraldine Jordan was 
the operator and primary care giver at Guardian Angel Day Care (“Guardian 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Angel”).  Guardian Angel was a type-B day-care home certified by the Cuyahoga 
County Department of Human Services (“CCDHS”).1 
 
On the morning of April 6, 1995, Venisha Butler, appellee, placed her 
eight-month-old son, Aaron, and two-year-old son, Sam, in the care of Jordan and 
Guardian Angel.  At approximately 3:15 p.m., that same day, Butler returned to 
Guardian Angel to pick up her children.  When Jordan brought Aaron out to his 
mother, Aaron was not breathing and his body was cold.  Butler noticed that there 
was a sticky substance around Aaron’s nose and mouth.  When Aaron failed to 
respond to CPR, an ambulance was called.  Aaron could not be revived and was 
pronounced dead on arrival at University Hospitals Rainbow Babies and 
Children’s Hospital.  The sticky substance on Aaron’s face was the residue of tape 
that had been placed over Aaron’s nose and mouth. 
 
On January 22, 1997, Butler filed a complaint in the Common Pleas Court 
of Cuyahoga County, naming Jordan, Guardian Angel, and CCDHS as 
defendants.  The complaint alleged that CCDHS, appellant, was negligent and/or 
reckless in the licensing and certification of Guardian Angel, and that its 
negligence or recklessness was the proximate cause of Aaron’s death.  On May 
16, 1997, CCDHS filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Butler’s claims.  
CCDHS contended that it was immune from civil liability pursuant to R.C. 
2744.02.  On April 15, 1998, the trial court granted CCDHS’s motion to dismiss.  
Butler appealed. 
 
The Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County reversed the judgment of the 
trial court.  The court of appeals held that R.C. 5104.11 imposed a duty upon 
                                                          
 
1. 
R.C. 5104.01(RR) (formerly [E]) defines “type B family day-care home” and “type B 
home” as “a permanent residence of the provider in which child day-care is provided for one to six 
children at one time and in which no more than three children are under two years of age at one 
time.” 
January Term, 2001 
3 
appellant to inspect and license2 type-B day-care homes and that the failure to 
carry out that duty qualified as an exception to immunity under R.C. 
2744.02(B)(5).  The case is now before this court upon our allowance of a 
discretionary appeal. 
R.C. Chapter 5104 
 
R.C. Chapter 5104 provides the procedures for licensing, inspecting, and 
certifying publicly funded child day-care centers, type-A day-care homes, and 
type-B family day-care homes.  Each facility has its own certification procedures.  
In the case of type-B family day-care homes, R.C. 5104.11(A) required a county 
department of human services, not the state, to inspect and certify type-B family 
day-care homes. 
 
Former R.C. 5104.11(A) provided: 
 
“[A]fter receipt of an application for certification from a type-B family 
day-care home, the county director of human services shall inspect and, if it 
complies with this chapter and any applicable rules adopted under this chapter, 
certify the type-B family day-care home to provide publicly funded child day-care 
pursuant to this chapter and any rules adopted under it.” (Emphasis added.)  
Sub.H.B. No. 155, 144 Ohio Laws, Part III, 3317. 
 
Former R.C. 5104.013(A)(2) provided: 
 
“The director of a county department of human services, as part of the 
process of certification of type-B family day-care homes, shall request the 
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation to 
conduct a criminal records check with respect to any authorized provider of a 
certified type-B family day-care home and any person eighteen years of age or 
                                                          
 
2. 
More properly the duty to inspect and certify.  R.C. 5104.11 required the county director 
of human services to inspect and certify type-B family day-care homes.  It is the Ohio Department 
of Job and Family Services that licenses day-care homes pursuant to R.C. 5104.03. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
older who resides in a certified type-B family day-care home.”3 (Emphasis 
added.)  Am.Sub.H.B. No. 687, 145 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 6949. 
 
Butler alleged in her complaint that CCDHS “was negligent and/or 
reckless in licensing and certifying Defendant Guardian Angel to provide day care 
services to infants.”  In support of her complaint, Butler argues that Guardian 
Angel was a certified type-B family day-care home subject to inspections by 
CCDHS and that CCDHS failed to perform the mandatory criminal background 
checks on Guardian Angel’s day-care providers.4 
R.C. Chapter 2744 
 
R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) provides immunity to political subdivisions and their 
employees for torts caused by any act or omission of a political subdivision or its 
employee.  R.C. 2744.02(B) sets forth exceptions to that grant of immunity.  
Specifically, R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) provides: 
 
“In addition to the circumstances described in divisions (B)(1) to (4) of 
this section, a political subdivision is liable for injury, death, or loss to persons or 
property when liability is expressly imposed upon the political subdivision by a 
section of the Revised Code * * *.  Liability shall not be construed to exist under 
another section of the Revised Code merely because a responsibility is imposed 
upon a political subdivision or because of a general authorization that a political 
subdivision may sue and be sued.” 
                                                          
 
3. 
In R.C. 5104.11(A) and 5104.013(A)(2), the county director of human services is now 
designated as the “county director of job and family services” or the “director of a county 
department of job and family services.”  There have been no other substantive changes in the 
quoted portions of the statutes. 
4. 
In this case, Butler alleges that CCDHS “was negligent and/or reckless in licensing and 
certifying Defendant Guardian Angel to provide day care services to infants.”  In her response to 
CCDHS’s motion to dismiss, Butler expanded on some of her allegations of negligence against 
CCDHS. Among allegations discussed in her response to CCDHS’s motion to dismiss, Butler 
claims that CCDHS failed to perform mandatory background checks on Guardian Angel’s 
employees.  A review of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) assumes all the 
allegations of the complaint to be true and is confined to the pleadings.  Nevertheless, it is 
appropriate to consider explanations in Butler’s response to CCDHS’s motion to dismiss in order 
to interpret the allegations of the complaint. 
January Term, 2001 
5 
 
Appellant argues that within the meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5), R.C. 
5104.11 does not expressly impose liability upon a political subdivision for failure 
to inspect and for negligent certification of type-B family homes.  We agree. 
 
In order to determine the immunity of a political subdivision pursuant to 
the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, a three-tiered analysis of R.C. 
Chapter 2744 is required.  We set forth that analysis in Cater v. Cleveland (1998), 
83 Ohio St.3d 24, 28, 697 N.E.2d 610, 614, and in Campbell v. Burton (2001), 92 
Ohio St.3d 336, ___ N.E.2d ___.  We will not repeat that discussion here.  After 
applying the three-tiered analysis we hold that the exception to political 
subdivision immunity found in R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) does not apply. 
 
Within the meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5), the term “liability” refers to 
either criminal or civil liability.  Campbell v. Burton, supra.  However, unlike 
R.C. Chapter 2151, which we reviewed in Campbell, R.C. Chapter 5104 provides 
no penalties for violation of statutory duties.  R.C. 5104.99 does impose penalties 
for violations of R.C. 5104.02, 5104.09(B), and 5104.09(C), but none of these 
sections deals with the duty of a political subdivision to inspect or certify a type-B 
family day-care home.  Accordingly, we hold that within the meaning of R.C. 
2744.02(B)(5), R.C. 5104.11 does not expressly impose liability on a political 
subdivision for failure to inspect or for the negligent certification of a type-B 
family day-care home even where the political subdivision has completely 
ignored the obligations imposed upon it by the statute.  Further, after an extensive 
review of pertinent sections of the Revised Code, we also find that within the 
meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5), no other section of the Revised Code expressly 
imposes liability on a political subdivision for failure to inspect or for the 
negligent certification of a type-B family day-care home. 
 
Appellee, like the court of appeals, relies upon Globe Am. Cas. Co. v. 
Cleveland (1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 674, 679, 651 N.E.2d 1015, 1018, to support 
the proposition that a statute, by imposing an express duty, also imposes express 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
liability.  However, R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) specifically provides to the contrary.  
“Expressly” means “in direct or unmistakable terms: in an express manner: 
explicitly, definitely, directly.”  (Emphasis added.)  Webster’s Third New 
International Dictionary (1986) 803.  Clearly, neither R.C. 5104.11 nor 5104.99, 
nor any other section of the Revised Code, expressly imposes liability upon a 
political subdivision for failure to inspect or for negligent certification of a type-B 
family day-care home.  Accordingly, based upon R.C. 2744.02(B)(5), strange as it 
may seem, CCDHS is immune from liability for failure to inspect or for the 
negligent certification of a type-B family day-care home because there is no 
statute expressly imposing liability. 
 
The tragedy of this case is that appellant is able to shuck its clear duties 
and responsibilities, as are other political subdivisions, on the sole basis of the 
doctrine of sovereign immunity.  What is this doctrine that permits the 
government to injure its citizens with impunity?  How can a government be 
immune from liability for an act for which that same government would impose 
liability upon one of its citizens?  The answer is that “government,” whoever that 
may be, has accorded itself the right to negligently injure its citizens with 
immunity, all in disregard of constitutional protections reserved by its citizens to 
themselves. 
The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity 
 
Appellee did not raise the constitutionality of R.C. Chapter 2744 generally 
or R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) specifically in the courts below.  Appellee does, at footnote 
two of her brief here, urge the court to consider the constitutionality of R.C. 
2744.02(B)(5).  Such a reference is not the procedurally proper way to raise the 
constitutionality of a statute.  See Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 
728 N.E.2d 1066, and R.C. 2721.12. 
 
However, given the allegations of this case, that a child was placed in the 
care of a person and her facility, that the facility was to be inspected and approved 
January Term, 2001 
7 
by the Cuyahoga County Department of Human Services, that the background of 
the care givers was to be checked, that the political subdivision entirely failed to 
comply with these statutory mandates before the facility was certified, and that 
when returned to his mother at the end of the work day, the child was dead, 
having been smothered with duct tape, it does seem that serious questions arise.  
This is especially true given the allegation that even though the political 
subdivision entirely failed to carry out its statutorily mandated duties, the political 
subdivision is found not to be liable, on the basis that it pleads that it is immune, 
pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.  It does, indeed, seem fair to ask, 
“How can this be the law?” 
History 
 
The history of sovereign immunity and how we find ourselves where we 
do in Ohio today is most interesting.  The history of the doctrine in this country is 
associated with the English common-law concept that “the king can do no 
wrong.”  See Haas v. Hayslip (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 135, 140, 5 O.O.3d 110, 113, 
364 N.E.2d 1376, 1379 (William B. Brown, J., dissenting).5 That concept evolved 
from the personal prerogatives of the King of England, who was considered the 
fount of justice and equity in the English common-law.  In the English feudal 
system, the lord of the manor was not subject to suit in his own courts.  See 1 
Pollock & Maitland, The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I (2 
Ed.1968) 518.  The king, as highest feudal lord, enjoyed this protection on the 
theory that no court was above him.  Id.  Further, the king was considered the 
supreme power and was, thus, infallible.  His person was considered sacred, and 
the law ascribed to him the attribute of sovereignty.  Therefore, it was his personal 
royal prerogative not to be subjected to suit in his own courts.  See, generally, 
                                                          
 
5. 
Haas v. Hayslip (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 135, 5 O.O.3d 110, 364 N.E.2d 1376, was 
overruled by Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc. (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 26, 2 OBR 572, 442 N.E.2d 
749. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
Borchard, Government Liability in Tort (1924), 34 Yale L.J. 1, 4.  Accordingly, 
the king could do no wrong. 
 
Although the notion of sovereign immunity is best suited to a government 
of royal power, American courts nonetheless accepted the doctrine in the early 
days of the republic.  See Prosser & Keeton, Law of Torts (5 Ed.1984) 1033.  
However, courts and commentators have remained mystified why the doctrine 
was ever accepted in this country.  Borchard expressed his bafflement this way: 
 
“Nothing seems more clear than that this immunity of the King from the 
jurisdiction of the King’s courts was purely personal.  How it came to be applied 
in the United States of America, where the [royal] prerogative is unknown, is one 
of the mysteries of legal evolution.  Admitting its application to the sovereign and 
its illogical ascription as an attribute of sovereignty generally, it is not easy to 
appreciate its application to the United States, where the location of sovereignty—
undivided sovereignty, as orthodox theory demands—is a difficult undertaking.  It 
is beyond doubt that the Executive in the United States is not historically the 
sovereign, and the legislature, which is perhaps the depository of the widest 
powers, is restrained by constitutional limitations.  The federal government is one 
of delegated powers and the states are not sovereign, according to the 
Constitution, as demonstrated forcibly by the Civil War and the resulting 
Amendments.  That brings us to the only remaining alternative, that sovereignty 
resides in the American electorate or the people.”  (Footnotes omitted.)  Borchard, 
Government Liability in Tort, 34 Yale L.J. at 4-5.  See, also, Muskopf v. Corning 
Hosp. Dist. (1961), 55 Cal.2d 211, 214-216, 11 Cal.Rptr. 89, 90-92, 359 P.2d 457, 
458-460. 
 
Indeed, the Declaration of Independence is an expression of why this 
country chose to sever ties with English rule.  In the strongest terms the 
forefathers of this country stated that we are endowed with “certain unalienable 
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to 
January Term, 2001 
9 
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just 
powers from the consent of the governed.”  (Emphasis added.)  Declaration of 
Independence, July 4, 1776.  The rights and powers of governmental entities in 
this country are derived from its citizens. 
 
In his dissenting opinion in Haas, supra, 51 Ohio St.2d at 140, 5 O.O.3d 
at 113, 364 N.E.2d at 1379, Justice William B. Brown summed up the entire 
matter by stating, “It is something of an anomaly that the common-law doctrine of 
sovereign immunity which is based on the concept that ‘the king can do no 
wrong’ was ever adopted by the American courts.”  (Footnote omitted.)  Further, 
the United States Supreme Court has also indicated that there is no rational 
justification in American jurisprudence for the English legal maxim “the King can 
do no wrong.”  Specifically, in Langford v. United States (1879), 101 U.S. 341, 
343, 25 L.Ed. 1010, 1011, the court stated, “We do not understand that either in 
reference to the government of the United States, or of the several States, or of 
any of their officers, the English maxim has an existence in this country.” 
 
The rule of county or local district immunity did not originate with the 
concept of sovereign immunity.  Indeed, legal authorities agree that the concept of 
local governmental immunity can be traced to the English case of Russell v. Men 
of Devon (K.B.1788), 100 Eng.Rep. 359, and the misapplication of Russell by a 
Massachusetts court in 1812. 
 
In Russell, the plaintiffs’ wagon was damaged as a consequence of a 
bridge being out of repair.  The plaintiffs sued the inhabitants of the 
unincorporated county for trespass on the case.  However, the court denied 
recovery on the basis that the inhabitants were not incorporated and, thus, there 
was no fund from which a judgment could have been paid.  In support of the 
holding, one member of the court said that “it is better that an individual should 
sustain an injury than that the public should suffer an inconvenience.”  Id. at 362. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
The rule of Russell was first introduced into this country in Mower v. 
Inhabitants of Leicester (1812), 9 Mass. 247, 1812 WL 927.  In Mower, a 
stagecoach belonging to the plaintiff, Ephraim Mower, was traveling through the 
town of Leicester when one of his horses was fatally injured as a consequence of 
a bridge being out of repair.  The plaintiff sued the inhabitants of Leicester, and a 
verdict was returned in his favor.  In contrast to the county in Russell, the town of 
Leicester was incorporated and had a public treasury out of which any judgment 
could have been paid.  However, ignoring the fact that Leicester was incorporated 
and that Mower was thus clearly distinguishable from Russell, the Massachusetts 
court held that no recovery could be had against the townspeople unless the 
recovery was authorized by statute.  Mower, 9 Mass. at 250.  This rule of local 
government immunity then became the general American rule.  See Borchard, 
Government Liability in Tort, 34 Yale L.J. at 41-42; and Muskopf, supra, 55 
Cal.2d 211, 11 Cal.Rptr. 89, 359 P.2d 457.  However, a reading of Mower 
demonstrates that there existed no logical reason in that case for recovery to have 
been denied.  In the words of Justice William B. Brown, “[t]he common-law 
precedent for municipal immunity (Russell v. Devon [1788], 100 Eng.Rep. 359), 
denied recovery because of the absence of a ‘corporation fund’ from which 
satisfaction could be made.  Since the Mower case did not deal with a lack of a 
corporate fund, it was essentially decided on the grounds of which party should 
bear the loss.”  Haas, 51 Ohio St.2d at 140, 5 O.O.3d at 113, 364 N.E.2d at 1380, 
fn. 3 (William B. Brown, J., dissenting). 
 
Ohio courts in the early 1800s did not share the view that local 
government units were immune from liability.  Rather, “[d]uring the period 
immediately following Mower and, indeed, throughout the early 1800’s, Ohio 
courts favored imposition of liability on local government units.  Concerned 
primarily with establishing a rule that promoted ‘substantial justice,’ Ohio courts 
considered municipal corporations and individuals equally responsible in tort.  
January Term, 2001 
11 
Justice was considered served only by spreading the losses inflicted upon private 
individuals through the execution of governmental activity upon everyone who 
had shared a benefit from such activity.”  (Footnotes omitted.)  Note, Municipal 
Immunity in Ohio—How Much Wrong Can a Municipality Do? (1984), 15 
U.Tol.L.Rev. 1559, 1566.  See, also, Comment, The Ohio Political Subdivision 
Tort Liability Act: A Legislative Response to the Judicial Abolishment of 
Sovereign Immunity (1986), 55 U.Cin.L.Rev. 501, 502 (the Ohio Supreme Court 
first introduced the doctrine of municipal sovereign immunity in 1854 and, prior 
to that time, courts treated Ohio municipalities the same as private individuals 
when imposing liability for wrongful acts or injuries); Comment, Can Municipal 
Immunity in Ohio be Resurrected from the Sewers after Haverlack v. Portage 
Homes, Inc.? (1983), 13 Cap.U.L.Rev. 41, 42 (“The early Ohio cases which dealt 
with municipal tort liability did not recognize immunity”); and Celebrezze & 
Hull, The Rise and Fall of Sovereign Immunity in Ohio (1984), 32 
Cleve.St.L.Rev. 367, 367-368 (“Municipal corporations have not always been 
protected by sovereign immunity in Ohio.  Instead, early cases held municipalities 
subject to action in tort as a matter of basic justice”). 
 
The doctrine of sovereign immunity was first applied in Ohio in 1840 in 
State v. Franklin Bank of Columbus (1840), 10 Ohio 91, 1840 WL 18.  See 
Celebrezze & Hull, The Rise and Fall of Sovereign Immunity in Ohio, supra, 32 
Cleve.St.L.Rev. at 369.  However, Franklin Bank of Columbus involved the 
liability of the state of Ohio—not a political subdivision of the state.  It was not 
until the 1854 case of Dayton v. Pease (1854), 4 Ohio St. 80, 1854 WL 63, that 
the doctrine of sovereign immunity was expanded to include political subdivisions 
(municipal corporations) of the state.  See Celebrezze & Hull, The Rise and Fall 
of Sovereign Immunity in Ohio, supra, 32 Cleve.St.L.Rev. at 370.  See, also, 
Comment, The Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, supra, 55 
U.Cin.L.Rev. at 502.  Prior to our 1854 decision in Pease, Ohio courts had 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
imposed tort liability on municipal corporations as a matter of basic justice.  See 
Celebrezze & Hull, The Rise and Fall of Sovereign Immunity in Ohio, supra, 32 
Cleve.St.L.Rev. at 367-369; Comment, The Ohio Political Subdivision Tort 
Liability Act, supra, 55 U.Cin.L.Rev. at 502; and Note, Municipal Immunity in 
Ohio, supra, 15 U.Tol.L.Rev. at 1566.  For example, in the several cases 
discussed below, spanning the period from 1831 to 1849, this court recognized the 
right to recover against political subdivisions (municipal corporations) of the state 
for injuries inflicted upon private individuals. 
 
In the first of these, Goodloe v. Cincinnati (1831), 4 Ohio 500, 1831 WL 
35, the defendant, Cincinnati, performed street repairs that included the 
excavation of the existing street that abutted the plaintiff’s house and paved 
alleyway.  The plaintiff brought an action alleging that the defendant, while 
grading an adjacent street, maliciously damaged his walls and basement.  While 
the allegation of malice suggests some form of intentional act, the facts support 
nothing more than a claim of simple negligence.  The trial court found in favor of 
the plaintiff; however, on appeal the court of appeals reversed.  On appeal, this 
court reinstated the trial court’s judgment, holding, “When a corporation acts 
illegally or maliciously, we conceive it ought to be made directly responsible.  
Such is the plain dictate of justice, and we see no technical rule of law that forbids 
us to act upon it.”  Id. at 514.  In reaching our conclusion we reasoned that 
municipal corporations in this country were performing all manner of operations 
for their own benefit and that “[w]hatever may have been the ancient doctrines, 
with regard to liability of corporations, for wrongs done by their agents, courts 
have gradually departed from them, and adopted principles more congenial to the 
state and condition of the world.”  Id. at 513. 
 
Smith v. Cincinnati (1831), 4 Ohio 514, 1831 WL 36, was decided on the 
same basis as Goodloe.  However, in contrast to the decision in Goodloe, this 
court in Smith noted that the plaintiff did not allege that the actions of the city 
January Term, 2001 
13 
were malicious.  Thus, in order to succeed on a claim sounding in negligence, a 
plaintiff did not have to establish that a political subdivision’s actions were 
malicious. 
 
In Rhodes v. Cleveland (1840), 10 Ohio 159, 1840 WL 31, this court 
further clarified the law with regard to the liability of political subdivisions.  
Rhodes involved a political subdivision digging drainage ditches that later flooded 
the plaintiff’s land.  This court reversed a verdict in favor of the political 
subdivision, where the jury was charged that the plaintiff could sustain his claim 
only if he showed that the defendant acted illegally or, if within its authority, 
acted maliciously.  We forthrightly held that “corporations [political subdivisions] 
are liable like individuals, for injuries done, although the act was not beyond their 
lawful powers.”  Id. at 161. Thus, the court no longer confined its determinations 
of political subdivision liability to instances where the political subdivision had 
acted beyond the scope of its authority or had acted maliciously. 
 
Rhodes also stated that it did “not look so much for precedents as to the 
following out of incontestable principles; for the current of decisions, for a long 
time, has been to increase the liabilities of corporations.”  Id.  The court further 
reasoned that “justice and good morals require that a corporation should repair a 
consequential injury which ensues from the exercise of its functions.”  Id. at 161.  
Chief Justice Lane wrote, “Every year furnishes new examples, of the extension of 
remedies against them, where injury is done, and remedies are applicable.  It does 
not, therefore, appear to me to be a sufficient reason, against sustaining this suit, 
that in other states the remedy is not extended so far.”  (Emphasis added.)  Id. 
 
In McCombs v. Town Council of Akron (1846), 15 Ohio 474, 1846 WL 
120, the plaintiff alleged that the political subdivision, while grading a street, 
damaged the plaintiff’s house and property.  As in Goodloe, the facts of this case 
reflect nothing more than what we refer to today as simple negligence.  The 
plaintiff asked the trial court to charge the jury that if the political subdivision 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
caused injury to the plaintiff’s property, the plaintiff could recover even if the 
political subdivision acted strictly within its authority with no intent to injure the 
plaintiff’s property.  The trial court refused to make this instruction to the jury.  
On appeal, the trial court’s judgment was affirmed. 
 
On appeal to the Supreme Court en banc, the court reversed, relying on 
Rhodes, and held that a political subdivision is liable for injuries resulting to the 
property of others from its act, though strictly within its corporate authority.  In 
reaching its conclusion, McCombs questioned the genesis of corporate immunity 
and stated, “A sort of transcendentalism which enveloped both the courts and the 
profession in a mist growing out of the airy nothingness of the subject matter, 
enabled corporations, like pestilence which walketh unseen, to do their mischief 
and escape the responsibility.”  Id. at 480.  This court further declared, “ ‘That the 
rights of one should be so used as not to impair the rights of another, is a principle 
of morals which, from very remote ages, has been recognized as a maxim of law.’ 
”  Id., quoting Rhodes, 10 Ohio at 160.  The case was remanded to the trial court. 
 
Upon remand, the trial court issued jury instructions in accordance with 
the law set forth by this court, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the 
plaintiff.  Three years after the case was remanded it was appealed once again to 
this court.  In Town Council of Akron v. McCombs (1849), 18 Ohio 229, 1849 WL 
105, the political subdivision claimed that the first decision in McCombs v. Town 
Council of Akron (1846), 15 Ohio 474, 1846 WL 120, had introduced a new 
doctrine of “doubtful propriety.”  Id., 18 Ohio at 230.  In response, this court 
restated its reliance upon Rhodes as being the first decision in this state which 
recognized that an action “sounding in tort, would lie against a municipal 
corporation by name, for an act done within the powers granted by its charter.”  
Id. at 231.  This court held once again that the political subdivision “will be held 
liable to the party injured, to make good his loss.”  Id. at 232. 
January Term, 2001 
15 
 
The cases of Goodloe and Smith were ultimately tried before juries.  See 
Smith v. Cincinnati (1831), 4 Ohio 514, 1831 WL 36, Reporter’s Note.  Rhodes 
and McCombs, too, were tried before juries.  Each case involved an action 
sounding in negligence or, more particularly, an action for trespass on the case.  It 
was not until Dayton v. Pease (1854), 4 Ohio St. 80, 1854 WL 63, that political 
subdivision immunity was discussed as a defense to the negligent acts of political 
subdivisions. 
 
In Pease, the defendant political subdivision, pursuant to a plan provided 
by the city engineer, began constructing a bridge over a canal.  During the 
construction the bridge collapsed into the canal and blocked the water flow of the 
canal.  The plaintiff owned a mill upstream from the fallen bridge, whose 
operation was prevented first by rising water, then by diversion of water upstream 
of the mill so that the wreckage could be cleared.  The plaintiff sued the defendant 
for “wrongfully and injuriously” constructing a bridge that was so inartfully 
constructed that it fell into the canal and dammed up the water preventing the 
plaintiff from the use of his mill.  In essence, the plaintiff claimed negligence.  
This court found that the political subdivision was liable for injuries resulting 
from the negligent acts of its agents, who were authorized and directed by the 
political subdivision. 
 
Pease distinguished Rhodes and both McCombs cases as holding that a 
political subdivision may be liable for acts through its agents, within the scope of 
its authority, and without malice or negligence.  Pease, 4 Ohio St. at 94.  Pease 
uses the term negligence to represent the carelessness of the city engineer in 
carrying out a task established by the political subdivision.  The court in Pease 
distinguished Rhodes and both McCombs cases on the basis that, in Pease, the 
employee did not carry out the task carefully and skillfully,  whereas in Rhodes 
and both McCombs cases, there were no allegations that the employees deviated 
from any directives placed upon them by the political subdivision, and, thus, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
16 
damages were not attributable to negligence.  However, the facts as alleged in 
Pease, Rhodes, and both McCombs cases, if viewed today, would all be treated as 
supporting negligence actions.  Thus, the distinctions made by Pease are of no 
import today. 
 
Additionally, and contrary to the assertions in Pease, Rhodes did not 
predicate a political subdivision’s liability upon a finding of negligence, 
maliciousness, or lack of authority.  Rhodes held only that “corporations are liable 
like individuals, for injuries done, although the act was not beyond their lawful 
powers.”  Rhodes, 10 Ohio at 161.  As a result of this discussion, it is clear that 
Pease failed to appreciably distinguish Rhodes and both McCombs cases, and did 
not even address Goodloe and Smith.  Furthermore, Pease misused Rhodes to 
apply limitations on political subdivision liability that were clearly not intended. 
 
Pease, as a basis for reinvestigating the doctrines upon which Rhodes and 
McCombs were founded, had to distinguish those cases.  Pease, 4 Ohio St. at 94.  
In furtherance of this, Pease discussed a number of New York cases that 
developed theories of political subdivision immunity and exceptions thereto, 
including governmental versus proprietary functions and ministerial versus 
discretionary acts.  Yet in its discussion of these theories, Pease disregards the 
clear intention of Rhodes, which did not place any limitations on political 
subdivision liability beyond that which would apply to an individual.  Finally, 
despite its discussions of political subdivision immunity, Pease ultimately found 
that the political subdivision was liable for the collapse of the bridge.  Pease, 4 
Ohio St. at 100-101. 
 
In addition to Goodloe, Smith, Rhodes, and McCombs, there is some 
evidence that the common law of this country at the time the Ohio Constitution 
was adopted in 1851 actually recognized no impediments to recovery against a 
corporate political subdivision of the state.  In Hack v. Salem (1963), 174 Ohio St. 
383, 392, 23 O.O.2d 34, 38, 189 N.E.2d 857, 862, Justice Gibson stated in a 
January Term, 2001 
17 
concurring opinion, “In the early reported American cases it apparently was 
assumed, without argument and as a matter of basic justice, that municipal 
corporations were subject to actions for torts.”  Professor Barnett has said, “The 
earliest reported American case coming to attention that recognized the tort 
liability of a municipal corporation is Hooe v. Alexandria [(1802), 1 Cranch C.C. 
90, 12 Fed.Cases 461, No. 6666], decided in 1802, in which no distinction was 
made between the tort liability of public and private corporations, and the city was 
held liable [in a jury trial], simply as ‘a corporation.’ ”  Barnett, The Foundations 
of the Distinction Between Public and Private Functions in Respect to the 
Common-Law Tort Liability of Municipal Corporations (1937), 16 Ore.L.Rev. 
250, 259.  Furthermore, Justice Gibson’s concurrence in Hack makes clear that 
the early cases in Ohio took the same approach as to tort liability of municipal 
corporations.  Hack, 174 Ohio St. at 392, 23 O.O.2d at 39, 189 N.E.2d at 863. 
 
Further, even if Ohio courts recognized immunity for corporate political 
subdivisions at the time of the adoption of the 1851 Ohio Constitution, such 
immunity apparently originated as an extension of the concept that “the King can 
do no wrong.”  However, as shown above, it appears that the historic justification 
for that English maxim never existed in this country.  Therefore, it follows that 
the common law of this country should never have recognized such an 
impediment to an action against a political subdivision.  Alternatively, county or 
local district immunity could have been predicated on the 1788 case of Russell v. 
Men of Devon, 100 Eng.Rep. 359.  If so, any grant of immunity might have been 
the product of an enormous judicial mistake.  Russell does not stand for the 
proposition that there exists county or local district immunity from liability for 
negligence.  Indeed, just the opposite is true.  That is, a careful reading of Russell 
indicates that recovery most likely would have been allowed had the defendants in 
the action been an incorporated governmental entity with a public treasury from 
which a judgment could have been paid.  Therefore, the common law of this 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
18 
country actually recognizes no rational justification for extending immunity to 
political subdivisions of the state. 
 
Thus, the doctrine of sovereign immunity for political subdivisions was 
judicially created.  As such, the doctrine could be judicially abolished.  This court 
did so in Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc. (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 26, 2 OBR 572, 
442 N.E.2d 749.  In Haverlack we recognized that sovereign or governmental 
immunity was judicially created and, thus, could be judicially abolished: 
 
“As aptly stated by Justice William B. Brown in Haas, supra [51 Ohio 
St.2d 135, 145, 5 O.O.3d 110, 116, 364 N.E.2d 1376, 1382], ‘the judicially 
created doctrine of sovereign immunity is a legal anachronism which denies 
recovery to injured individuals without regard to the municipality’s culpability or 
the individual’s need for compensation.’ * * * Because Ohio’s sovereign 
immunity for municipalities was judicially created (see State v. Franklin Bank of 
Columbus [1840], 10 Ohio 91; Western College of Homeopathic Medicine v. 
Cleveland [1861], 12 Ohio St. 375 [1861 WL 41]; and Thacker v. Bd. of Trustees 
of Ohio State Univ. [1973], 35 Ohio St.2d 49, 67-68 [64 O.O.2d 28, 38, 298 
N.E.2d 542, 552-553] [William B. Brown, J., dissenting]), it can be judicially 
abolished.  * * * When we considered sovereign immunity last year, we noted that 
only six other states adhered to the traditional common law immunity doctrines.  
Schenkolewski v. [Cleveland] Metroparks System (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 31, 38 
[21 O.O.3d 19, 24, 426 N.E.2d 784, 788-789].  Stare decisis alone is not a 
sufficient reason to retain the doctrine which serves no purpose and produces such 
harsh results.  Therefore, we join with the other states in abrogating the doctrine.”  
Haverlack, 2 Ohio St.3d at 30, 2 OBR at 575, 442 N.E.2d at 752. 
 
Haverlack implies that sovereign immunity for municipalities was 
accepted in this state by 1840 in Franklin Bank of Columbus, supra, 10 Ohio 91.  
However, Franklin Bank of Columbus actually says that no suit can be brought 
against the state—not a political subdivision of the state.  The other early case 
January Term, 2001 
19 
cited by the Haverlack court as creating sovereign immunity for municipalities 
was W. College of Homeopathic Medicine v. Cleveland (1861), 12 Ohio St. 375, 
1861 WL 41, which did involve the liability of a political subdivision of the state, 
but which was decided after the adoption of Section 5, Article I of the Ohio 
Constitution.6 It is also important to recognize that Haverlack adopted the 
historical analysis of sovereign or governmental immunity set forth in Justice 
William B. Brown’s dissent in Haas, 51 Ohio St.2d at 140-145, 5 O.O.3d at 113-
116, 364 N.E.2d at 1379-1382, and the analysis of Justice Gibson’s concurrence 
in Hack, 174 Ohio St. at 391-402, 23 O.O.2d at 38-45, 189 N.E.2d at 862-869, 
wherein it was essentially argued that municipal immunity has no rational 
justification in the common law of this country. 
 
Although the court found no justification for sovereign immunity for 
municipalities, it went on to state, “We hold that the defense of sovereign 
immunity is not available, in the absence of a statute providing immunity, to a 
municipal corporation in an action for damages alleged to be caused by the 
negligent operation of a sewage treatment plant.  A municipal corporation, unless 
immune by statute, is liable for its negligence in the performance or 
nonperformance of its acts.”  (Emphasis added.)  Haverlack, 2 Ohio St.3d at 30, 2 
OBR at 575, 442 N.E.2d at 752; see, also, paragraph two of the syllabus.  These 
statements, however, were made without citation to any authority and without 
consideration of Section 5, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. 
 
The abolishment of “sovereign immunity” by this court set in motion 
activity by the General Assembly.  In 1985, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 
Chapter 2744, the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act.  Included in that Act, 
                                                          
 
6. 
Section 5, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provides, “The right to trial by jury shall be 
inviolate, except that, in civil cases, laws may be passed to authorize the rendering of a verdict by 
a concurrence of not less than three-fourths of the jury.”  See discussion regarding the right to trial 
by jury, supra. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
20 
in addition to other types of political subdivision immunity, is R.C. 
2744.02(B)(5), the section of the Revised Code at issue in the case at bar. 
 
Since the enactment of R.C. Chapter 2744, this court and courts all across 
the state have been called upon, time and time again, to unravel what that law 
provides as applied to a myriad of fact patterns.  Often we have been referred to 
Menefee v. Queen City Metro (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 27, 550 N.E.2d 181, Fabrey 
v. McDonald Village Police Dept. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 351, 639 N.E.2d 31, and 
Fahnbulleh v. Strahan (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 666, 653 N.E.2d 1186, for the 
propositions that the right to sue a political subdivision is not a fundamental right 
and that immunity existed at common law and thus there is no right to a jury trial.  
The last two of these cases rely on the second sentence of Section 16, Article I, 
which is inapplicable to political subdivisions because that section applies only to 
the state. 
 
Accordingly, the only cases that are pertinent for discussion on political 
subdivision tort liability are those which interpret R.C. Chapter 2744.  In trying to 
arrive at equitable as well as law-based decisions, courts, one after another, have 
found it necessary, when interpreting various sections of R.C. Chapter 2744, to 
stretch the statute beyond its parameters.  This occurs because courts are having to 
make equitable decisions in an inherently inequitable system. 
 
Thus, as recently as March of this year, this court decided Muenchenbach 
v. Preble Cty. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 141, 742 N.E.2d 1128, holding that a four-
wheeled tractor equipped with a street-sweeping brush on the front and a scraper 
blade on the back, and being used in construction work, might be a motor vehicle 
“employed in general highway transportation.”  In writing for the court, Justice 
Resnick said that “for purposes of R.C. 2744.02(B)(1), a ‘use standard’ is an 
appropriate test for determining whether a vehicle is excepted from the definition” 
of motor vehicle found in R.C. 4511.01(B).  Id. at 148, 742 N.E.2d at 1133.  The 
Muenchenbach court, quoting the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County in 
January Term, 2001 
21 
Putka v. Parma (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 647, 652, 630 N.E.2d 380, 383, stated 
that where a backhoe, customarily used in construction work, “ ‘is operated on the 
public road like any other vehicle, it cannot be exempt as a matter of law from 
being classified as a “motor vehicle” on the pretext that it traveled a short 
distance.’ ”  (Emphasis added.)  Muenchenbach, 91 Ohio St.3d at 144, 742 N.E.2d 
at 1130. 
 
In 1999, this court decided Perkins v. Norwood City Schools (1999), 85 
Ohio St.3d 191, 707 N.E.2d 868, with Chief Justice Moyer writing for the court.  
There we held that a school district was not entitled to immunity, pursuant to R.C. 
2744.03(A)(5), where a student in the school fell and injured himself as a result of 
water on the floor, which was there from a leaking drinking fountain. 
 
In Cater v. Cleveland (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 24, 697 N.E.2d 610, syllabus, 
we held, “The operation of a municipal swimming pool, although defined as a 
governmental function in R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(u), is subject to the exceptions to 
immunity set forth in former R.C. 2744.02(B) * * *.”  In so holding, Justice 
Francis Sweeney found that glare caused by sunlight reflecting off a glass-paneled 
wall along the side of the pool was a nuisance, and, accordingly, the city could be 
liable for the drowning death of a twelve-year-old boy. 
 
In Garrett v. Sandusky (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 139, 624 N.E.2d 704, a 
nearly unanimous court found that a wave pool is not a swimming pool:  “In the 
present case, the Surf’s Up Aquatic Center operated by the city was not merely a 
‘swimming pool.’  The wave activation device at this facility materially 
transformed the pool from a placid body of water, commonly known as a 
swimming pool, to a potentially hazardous body of churning water.  A wave pool 
is more akin to an amusement ride, which is not an immunized municipal function 
according to R.C. Chapter 2744.”  Id. at 140, 624 N.E.2d at 706.  In concurring in 
judgment only, Justice Pfeifer discussed Section 16, Article I of the Constitution 
of Ohio.  While that section of the Constitution applies to suits against the state 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
22 
and not a political subdivision (the governmental entity we had in Garrett), 
nevertheless what was said is important and makes the point.  Justice Pfeifer said, 
“[T]he true intent of the amendment to Section 16, Article I was to abolish 
sovereign immunity in its entirety. * * * Governmental immunity, including 
municipal immunity, is contrary to the clear meaning and mandate of the Ohio 
Constitution.”  (Emphasis added.)  Id. at 144, 624 N.E.2d at 708. 
 
In 1997, Hill v. Urbana (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 130, 679 N.E.2d 1109, was 
decided.  Therein, an independent contractor was hired to assist Urbana in 
improving its water distribution system.  The project was under the supervision of 
Urbana’s Water Department supervisor.  Hill, an employee of the independent 
contractor, was injured when the water pressure blew the valve off the pipe being 
worked on by Hill.  The water was turned on prior to Hill’s completion of his 
task, contrary to his specific requests.  We held that because maintenance and 
operation of a municipal corporation water supply system is a proprietary function 
of a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.01(G)(2)(c), the political subdivision 
was not immune to suit for its negligence under R.C. 2744.02(B)(2). 
 
The forgoing sample listing of cases is by no means all-inclusive.  There 
have been, and continue to be, many more.  We have not, of course, been alone in 
this struggle.  Courts of appeals all across this state continue to confront fact 
patterns presenting claims of sovereign immunity when the results of so finding 
would be inequitable at best and disastrous at worst. 
 
In Groves v. Dayton Pub. Schools (1999), 132 Ohio App.3d 566, 725 
N.E.2d 734, a disabled student sued a school district seeking damages for injuries 
she suffered as a result of a district bus driver’s alleged negligence in failing to 
secure her in her wheelchair when helping her off the bus.  The statute being 
construed, R.C. 2744.02(B)(1), provided an exception to immunity where injuries 
were caused by the negligent operation on public roads of any motor vehicle by 
an employee of a political subdivision acting within the scope of his employment.  
January Term, 2001 
23 
The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the 
political subdivision’s motion to dismiss, holding that it could be inferred from 
the complaint that the driver’s actions were part of his duties and that it could be 
found that the driver was operating the school bus at the time of the student’s 
injury.  Id. at 570, 725 N.E.2d at 737. 
 
In Hunsche v. Loveland (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 535, 729 N.E.2d 393, a 
political subdivision owned a park outside its corporate limits.  On this land the 
city deposited a large pile of dirt.  The city failed to maintain effective erosion-
control measures, thus dramatically increasing the amount of water and sediment 
draining from the park into the pond of neighboring property owners.  The First 
District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determination that the political 
subdivision was not immune from suit and that the city engaged in willful, 
wanton, and reckless conduct.  Id. at 542, 729 N.E.2d at 397-398. 
 
As recently as December of last year, the Tenth District Court of Appeals 
decided Hunter v. Columbus (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 962, 746 N.E.2d 246, 
discretionary appeal denied (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1493, 745 N.E.2d 439.  For 
purposes of summary judgment there was evidence that a driver of an emergency 
vehicle, driving sixty-one m.p.h. in a thirty-five m.p.h. speed zone and driving left 
of center, crashed into a vehicle operated by plaintiff’s decedent, thereby causing 
the death of plaintiff’s decedent.  The court held that the city was not entitled to 
immunity, because the driver’s conduct could be found to be willful and wanton 
misconduct under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(c). 
 
Once again, the foregoing examples are just that—examples.7 They are but 
a few examples of necessity being the mother of invention and resulting in 
                                                          
 
7. 
For some further cases involving judicially created exceptions to sovereign immunity, see 
Harp v. Cleveland Hts. (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 506, 721 N.E.2d 1020; Greene Cty. Agricultural 
Soc. v. Liming (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 551, 733 N.E.2d 1141; Mfr’s. Natl. Bank of Detroit v. Erie 
Cty. Rd. Comm. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 318, 587 N.E.2d 819; Doe v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. 
of Edn. (1999), 137 Ohio App.3d 166, 738 N.E.2d 390; Globe Am. Cas. Co. v. Cleveland (1994), 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
24 
judicially created exceptions to sovereign immunity.  The danger is best described 
by the legal maxim nil agit exemplum litem quod lite resovit.  A precedent 
accomplishes nothing if it settles one dispute by raising another.  So many of 
these sovereign immunity cases do just that.  In retrospect, they present more 
questions than the single question they answer. 
 
A review of these cases indicates that the exceptions to the rule of 
sovereign immunity are so numerous as to threaten to subsume the rule itself.  
The reason should be clear.  This usually happens when a rule itself is faulty, i.e., 
is not soundly based in legal history or the law.  That is the case of the concept of 
sovereign immunity for political subdivisions.  We have already reviewed, above, 
the legal history of the doctrine.  That leaves yet to be discussed why the doctrine 
is also faulty when the Ohio Constitution (the law) is examined. 
Trial by Jury 
 
The right to trial by jury derives from the Magna Carta.  It is reasserted in 
both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of 
Ohio.  Even before the adoption of a state constitution, the first laws governing 
the territory of Ohio provided for the right to a trial by jury, stating, “No man 
shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by 
the law of the land * * *.”  (Emphasis added.)  Article 2, Ordinance of July 13, 
1787.  For centuries, the right to a jury trial has been held to be a fundamental 
constitutional right.  See Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Halliday (1933), 127 Ohio St. 278, 
284, 188 N.E. 1, 3.  It is a substantive right, not a mere procedural privilege.  See 
id. at paragraph one of the syllabus, and Kneisley v. Lattimer-Stevens Co. (1988), 
40 Ohio St.3d 354, 356, 533 N.E.2d 743, 746. 
                                                                                                                                                              
 
99 Ohio App.3d 674, 651 N.E.2d 1015; Putka v. Parma (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 647, 630 N.E.2d 
380; Starling v. MetroHealth Ctr. Skilled Nursing (Sept. 2, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 75554, 
unreported, 1999 WL 685641; and Reed v. Perry Cty. Children’s Serv. (June 8, 1993), Perry App. 
No. CA-437, unreported, 1993 WL 221260. 
January Term, 2001 
25 
 
The right to trial by jury is one of the most fundamentally democratic 
institutions in the history of the human race.  Throughout history, the right to trial 
by jury has been considered the crown jewel of our liberty.  “For 500 years, trial 
by jury has been praised as the most cherished institution of free and intelligent 
government that the world has ever seen and as the best institution for the 
administration of justice ever devised by the mind of man.”  1 Few, In Defense of 
Trial by Jury (1993) 74. 
 
The founders of this great nation held the right to trial by jury in very high 
esteem.  Prior to the ratification of our nation’s Constitution, in a letter to James 
Madison, Thomas Jefferson expressed concern regarding the omission of a right 
to trial by jury in the proposed bill of rights.  The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 
(Padover Ed.1967) 312.  In particular, Jefferson recognized that several states had 
been “so incautious as to dispense” with the right to trial by jury and that to go 
forward without the right would reduce the more prudent states to the same level 
of “calamity” as those states that had dispensed with it.  Id.  Jefferson considered 
the exclusion of the right by other states and found it “much more just and wise to 
have concluded the other way, that as most of the States had preserved with 
jealousy this sacred palladium of liberty, those who had wandered, should be 
brought back to it; and to have established a general right rather than a general 
wrong.”  Id.  Following the ratification of our nation’s Constitution, while 
presenting the proposed Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives, James 
Madison stated that the civil jury is “one of the best securities of the rights of the 
people [which] ought to remain inviolate.”  1 Few, In Defense of Trial by Jury 
(1993) 74.  Thomas Jefferson lauded the right to a jury trial as among the 
principles that “[t]he wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes” had been 
devoted to attain.  He urged, “[S]hould we wander from them in moments of error 
or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone 
leads to peace, liberty, and safety.”  The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Padover 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
26 
Ed.1967) 274.  Our forefathers were willing to sacrifice their very lives to 
preserve for the people of the United States of America the inestimable right to 
trial by jury. 
 
In the words of United States Supreme Court Justice (now Chief Justice) 
William J. Rehnquist, “The founders of our Nation considered the right of trial by 
jury in civil cases an important bulwark against tyranny and corruption, a 
safeguard too precious to be left to the whim of the sovereign, or, it might be 
added, to that of the judiciary.  * * * Trial by a jury of laymen rather than by the 
sovereign’s judges was important to the founders because juries represent the 
layman’s common sense * * * and thus keep the administration of law in accord 
with the wishes and feelings of the community.”  Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. 
Shore (1979), 439 U.S. 322, 343-344, 99 S.Ct. 645, 657-658, 58 L.Ed.2d 552, 570 
(Rehnquist, J., dissenting). 
 
The Ohio Constitution recognizes the fundamental right to trial by jury in 
Section 5, Article I, which states: 
 
“The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate, except that, in civil cases, 
laws may be passed to authorize the rendering of a verdict by the concurrence of 
not less than three-fourths of the jury.”  (Emphasis added.) 
 
It is difficult to imagine a more forceful way of saying that the right to 
trial by jury should in no way be infringed. 
 
R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) operates to restrict Butler’s right to hold appellant, 
CCDHS, and its employee liable for their negligence in ignoring the duty to 
inspect Guardian Angel before certifying it as a type-B day-care home.  However, 
if Butler had a constitutionally protected right to a trial by jury in her action 
against CCDHS, then any application of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) that restricts her 
right to a trial by jury would be constitutionally impermissible. 
 
Section 5, Article I of the Ohio Constitution does not guarantee a jury trial 
in all cases.  Rather, “Section 5 of Article I of the Constitution of Ohio only 
January Term, 2001 
27 
guarantees the right of trial by jury in those cases where it existed previous to its 
adoption.”  Belding v. State ex rel. Heifner (1929), 121 Ohio St. 393, 169 N.E. 
301, paragraph one of the syllabus.  See, also, Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), 69 Ohio 
St.3d 415, 421, 633 N.E.2d 504, 510. 
 
Here, Butler asserted an action for negligence against CCDHS, a political 
subdivision of the state.  Negligence actions evolved from the common-law action 
of trespass on the case, and there is no question that the right to trial by jury 
existed in such actions at the time the Ohio Constitution was adopted. Moreover, 
a right to trial by jury in a negligence action against a political subdivision existed 
at the time the Ohio Constitution was adopted, as we have set forth previously in 
discussing Goodloe, Smith, Rhodes, and McCombs I and II.  Thus, Butler had a 
constitutionally protected right to trial by jury against CCDHS, and, accordingly, 
R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) should not be applied to negate any negligence of CCDHS, 
since doing so would violate Section 5, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. 
 
Additionally, the concept of sovereign immunity is applicable in this 
country (if at all) to the federal and state governments—not to the political 
subdivisions of the state.  See, generally, Prosser & Keeton, Law of Torts (5 
Ed.1984) 1033, 1043 and 1051, Section 131.  Corporate political subdivisions of 
the state are not sovereign powers.  By definition, a “sovereign” is “[a] person, 
body, or state vested with independent and supreme authority.”  Black’s Law 
Dictionary (7 Ed.1999) 1401.  “Sovereignty” means “[t]he supreme political 
authority of an independent state.”  Id. at 1402.  In this regard, a political 
subdivision of a state government cannot by any stretch of the imagination be 
considered a sovereign power. 
 
Finally, a review of the constitutional and statutory provisions with respect 
to sovereign immunity is instructive.  R.C. 2744.01(H) of the Political 
Subdivision Tort Liability Act provides, “ ‘State’ means the state of Ohio * * *.  
‘State’ does not include political subdivisions.”  R.C. 2743.01(A) of the Court of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
28 
Claims Act reads the same:  “ ‘State’ means the state of Ohio * * *.  ‘State’ does 
not include political subdivisions.” 
 
R.C. 2743.01(B) provides, “ ‘Political subdivisions’ means municipal 
corporations * * * and all other bodies corporate and politic responsible for 
governmental activities * * * to which the sovereign immunity of the state 
attaches.” (Emphasis added.)  The second sentence of Section 16, Article I, Ohio 
Constitution provides, “Suits may be brought against the state, in such courts and 
in such manner, as may be provided by law.”  This provision was placed in our 
Constitution, by a vote of the people of Ohio, as a product of the Constitutional 
Convention of 1912.  In furtherance of this provision, the General Assembly 
passed the Court of Claims Act and R.C. 2743.02, effective in 1975.  In R.C. 
2743.02, the General Assembly purported to waive the immunity of the state, an 
immunity, of course, that did not exist, given the waiver in Section 16, Article I, 
Ohio Constitution and the common law.  R.C. 2743.02(A)(1) very specifically 
provides, “The state hereby waives its immunity from liability and consents to be 
sued, and have its liability determined, in the court of claims created in this 
chapter in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits between 
private parties * * *.” 
 
Therefore, pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(A)(1), the state has waived sovereign 
immunity and, accordingly, there is no sovereign immunity to attach to political 
subdivisions, pursuant to R.C. 2743.01(B).  This includes, of course, “political 
subdivisions” as defined in R.C. 2743.01(B).  Thus, for all of the foregoing 
reasons, “sovereign immunity” never was nor should it ever have been a viable 
legal doctrine according to which government can injure its citizens with 
immunity when the same injury is redressable if caused by one of the 
government’s citizens. 
January Term, 2001 
29 
Conclusion 
 
The facts of this case are tragic.  Nevertheless, unless R.C. Chapter 2744 
in general or any of its specific provisions in particular are found to be 
unconstitutional as violating either Section 5, Article I (jury trial) or the first 
sentence of Section 16, Article I (right to remedy),8 R.C. Chapter 2744 remains 
the law and must be interpreted and applied (albeit with many exceptions as 
noted) as written. 
 
We leave this subject for now with three additional thoughts.  First, we do 
not say, and we do not mean to say, that CCDHS was negligent or did anything 
wrong in this case.  The case was dismissed on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion which, 
of course, requires us to view all of the allegations of the complaint as true.  The 
only issue before us is whether CCDHS is statutorily immune regardless of any 
negligence on its part. 
 
Second, a finding that the concept of sovereign immunity is anathema to 
the thoughts of the founding fathers of our republic or is unconstitutional on the 
basis of the right to trial by jury or the right to remedy would not be the end of the 
world.  If a political subdivision has an array of reasonable rules and regulations 
for dealing with its citizens in the performance of its duties, and it and its 
employees follow those rules, then actions they take that cause injury would not 
be negligence and, accordingly, there would be no liability—and no need for 
immunity.  If the rules are ignored and negligence ensues and injury results, then 
the political subdivision can (and most now do) insure itself to compensate those 
who have suffered as a result of the negligence.  This is no different from what, in 
many instances, the political subdivision requires of its citizens. 
                                                          
 
8. 
The first sentence of Section 16, Article I, Ohio Constitution provides: “All courts shall 
be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation, shall 
have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
30 
 
Third, and maybe most important, applying such broad immunity to 
governmental wrongdoers gives no encouragement to do right, and no liability or 
penalty for doing wrong.  When there is no accountability for failure, failure is 
sure to follow.9 
 
Socrates once said: “What is in conformity with justice should also be in 
conformity to the laws.”  The International Dictionary of Thoughts (1969) 416.  
Maybe that is why John Fitzgerald Kennedy said: “The achievement of justice is 
an endless process.”  Id. at 415. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the judgment of the 
trial court is reinstated. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and BROWN, J., concur in syllabus and judgment. 
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., separately concur in syllabus and 
judgment. 
 
SUSAN BROWN, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for RESNICK, J. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., concurring in judgment.  Because I agree that R.C. 5104.11 
does not expressly impose liability upon a political subdivision within the 
meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5), I join today’s syllabus and judgment.  While 
doing so, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in 
Campbell v. Burton (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 336, __ N.E.2d __.  I write separately 
to respond to the plurality opinion’s dicta addressing the constitutionality of R.C. 
Chapter 2744 and the history of political subdivision immunity. 
                                                          
 
9. 
For comparison to another statute that imposes a duty but does not expressly impose 
liability, see Marshall v. Montgomery Cty. Children Serv. Bd. (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 348, ___ 
N.E.2d ___. 
January Term, 2001 
31 
 
The constitutionality of R.C. Chapter 2744 is not at issue in this case.  The 
plurality opinion ultimately recognizes this fact and accordingly decides this case 
on grounds of statutory interpretation alone.  Nevertheless, the plurality opinion 
devotes several pages of the Ohio Official Reports to its not so subtle hint that 
R.C. Chapter 2744 violates Sections 5 and 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.  
Until these constitutional issues are directly presented to this court again, 
however, we should refrain from addressing them even in dicta. 
 
The plurality also undertakes a detailed analysis of the history of political 
subdivision immunity in order to show that the doctrine is “faulty.”  As the 
plurality observes, political subdivision immunity was a judicially created 
doctrine that this court ultimately abolished in the early 1980s.  See Haverlack v. 
Portage Homes, Inc. (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 26, 2 OBR 572, 442 N.E.2d 749; 
Enghauser Mfg. Co. v. Eriksson Eng. Ltd. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 31, 33, 6 OBR 53, 
54, 451 N.E.2d 228, 230, and paragraph one of the syllabus; Zents v. Summit Cty. 
Bd. of Commrs. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 204, 9 OBR 516, 459 N.E.2d 881, syllabus.  
In abolishing the immunity held by local governments, this court questioned the 
historical underpinnings of the immunity doctrine in much the same way that the 
plurality opinion does today.  See Enghauser Mfg. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d at 33-34, 6 
OBR at 54-55, 451 N.E.2d at 230-231.10 
                                                          
 
10. 
This court’s abolishment of political subdivision immunity was not complete.  This court 
made clear that political subdivisions remained immune from liability “for those acts or omissions 
involving the exercise of a legislative or judicial function or the exercise of an executive or 
planning function involving the making of a basic policy decision which is characterized by the 
exercise of a high degree of official judgment or discretion.”  Enghauser Mfg. Co., paragraph two 
of the syllabus; see, also, Zents, syllabus.  This court thus recognized that local governments 
remained immune from liability for “certain acts which go to the essence of governing,” i.e., 
conduct characterized by a high degree of discretion and judgment in making public policy 
choices.  Enghauser Mfg. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d at 35, 6 OBR at 56, 451 N.E.2d at 232.  Accord 
Whitney v. Worcester (1977), 373 Mass. 208, 218-219, 366 N.E.2d 1210, 1216; Muskopf v. 
Corning Hosp. Dist. (1961), 55 Cal.2d 211, 220-221, 359 P.2d 457, 462-463, 11 Cal.Rptr. 89, 94-
95. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
32 
 
As instructive and important as the history of political subdivision 
immunity may be, however, it is of diminished significance when assessing the 
continued viability of the doctrine today.  The General Assembly responded to 
Haverlack, Enghauser Mfg., and Zents by enacting the Political Subdivision Tort 
Liability Act, declaring that political subdivisions would be liable in tort only as 
set forth in R.C. Chapter 2744.  The legislature has therefore deemed political 
subdivision immunity to be desirable as the public policy of this state.  Thus, any 
concern this court may have about the wisdom of political subdivision immunity 
or whether the doctrine is “soundly based in legal history or the law” is largely 
beside the point.  Questions concerning the wisdom of legislation are “for the 
legislature, and whether the court agrees with it in that particular or not is of no 
consequence. * * * If the legislature has the constitutional power to enact a law, 
no matter whether the law be wise or otherwise it is no concern of the court.”  
State Bd. of Health v. Greenville (1912), 86 Ohio St. 1, 20, 98 N.E. 1019, 1021.  
If and when this court is called upon to assess the validity of R.C. Chapter 2744, 
the plurality’s belief that political subdivision immunity is a “faulty” rule should 
play no part in deciding the issue. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, Sandra 
Curtis-Patrick and Arline M. Zehe, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant. 
 
Novak, Robenalt, Pavlik & Scharf, L.L.P., William J. Novak, Thomas D. 
Robenalt and David W. Skall, for appellee. 
__________________