[Cite as R.G. v. Ginn , 2024

- Ohio

- 2033.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[R.G.] Administrator of the Estate of : [A.G.], deceased,

:

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

:
v.
: No. 23AP

- 665 Renee Ginn et al., (C.P.C. No. 22CV

- 3698)

: Defendants

- Appellee s , (REGULAR CALENDAR)

: Jason Mantell et al.,

:

Defendants

- Appellants.

:

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on May 28, 2024

On brief: Spangenberg S hibley & L iber LLP
, Jeremy A. Tor , Nichaols A. Dicello , and Kevin C. Hulick ; Ressler & Tesh
, Timothy Tesh , and Jonathan Van Eck , for appellee. Argued: Jeremy A. Tor.

On brief: Teetor/Westfall
, LLC , J. Stephen Teetor
, Matthew S. Teetor , and Sarah A. Lodge , for appellants. Argued: J. Stephen Teetor

.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
LELAND , J. {¶ 1} Defendants

- appellants, all employees of Scioto County Children’s Services
Board ( “ SCCS ” ) , appeal from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying their motion s for judgment on the pleadings

. A ppellants are Jason Mantell, Kellie Stevenson, Maura Adams, Jacob Porter, Treasa Black, Geoffrey Patmore, Kelli Potts, and Japheth Johnson.No. 2 3 AP

- 665 2

I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} On May 31, 2022, plaintiff

- appellee
, R.G. , filed a complaint against SCCS and

13 of its employees in relation to the death of his five

- year
- old daughter, A.G

. The complaint

assert ed claims of survivorship and wrongful death , alleging SCCS and its employees ’
wanton and reckless conduct proximate ly cause d A.G.’s death. Specifically, the complaint allege d SCCS and its employees wantonly and recklessly placed A.G. i n the custody of her grandfather and step

- grandmother, Richard and Sonja , and failed to remove her despite having knowledge A.G. was in danger. {¶ 3} On December 27, 2022, SCCS and each appellant filed a Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings

. SCCS claimed it was immune as a political subdivision from claims of survivorship and wrongful death pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) , while appellants requested immunity as employees of a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). On January 10, 2023, R.G. voluntarily dismissed SCCS as a defendant pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1) (a) while separately filing a memorandum contra appellants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings

. {¶ 4} On October 6, 2023, the trial court filed a decision a n d entry denying appellants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court concluded R.G. pled sufficient facts to put appellants on notice of claims of wanton and reckless conduct in
relation to the wrongful death of A.G

. {¶ 5} Appellants timely appealed. II. Assignment of E rror {¶ 6} Appellant s present the following sole assignment of error for our review: The trial court erred when it denied immunity for Jason Mantell, Kellie Stevenson, Maura Adams, Jacob Porter, T r easa Black, Geoffrey Patmore, Kelli Potts, and Japheth Johnson.
III. Analysis {¶ 7} In their sole assignment of error, appellants contend the trial court erred in denying their respective motions for judgment on the pleadings. Specifically, appellants

argue R.G.’s complaint did not state facts that, if proved, are sufficient to qualify for an exception to the immunity afforded employees of political subdivisions under
R.C. 2744.03( A)(6).No. 2 3 AP

- 665 3

{¶ 8} Generally, Ohio law provides employees of political subdivisions with immunity from lawsuits and liability. R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) ; see Maternal Grandmothe r , A dm r

. v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. , 167 Ohio St.3d 390, 2021

- Ohio

4096, ¶ 7. An exception to that rule, however, “ permits plaintiffs to sue and hold liable employees of a political subdivision if the employees ’ acts or omissions in the course and scope of their employment were wanton or reckless. ” Maternal Grandmother at ¶ 7 , citing
R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). Wanton and reckless conduct equates to “ ‘ something more than mere negligence

. ’ ” Id. at ¶ 8 , quoting O’Toole
, Adm r

. v. Denihan , 118 Ohio St. 3d 374, 2008

- Ohio

- 2574, paragraph three of the syllabus. “ Wanton misconduct is the ‘ failure to exercise any care toward those to whom a duty of care is owed in circumstances in which there is great probability that harm will result. ’ ” Id.
, quoting Anderson
, Adm r

. v. Massillon , 134 Ohio St.3d 380, 2012

- Ohio

- 5711, ¶ 33. “ Reckless conduct is ‘ the conscious disregard of or
indifference to a known or obvious risk of harm to another that is unreasonable under the
circumstances. ’ ” Id. , quoting Anderson at ¶ 34. {¶ 9} Seeing as the immediate appeal involves motion s for judgment on the pleadings, we begin by defining the pleading standard needed to state a valid claim

. Ohio
is a notice

- pleading state, which means “ ‘ a short and plain statement of the claim ’ ” is typically sufficient

. Id. at ¶ 10 , quoting Civ.R. 8(A); citing Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Horn
, 142 Ohio St.3d 416, 2015

- Ohio

- 1484, ¶ 13

. “ In this context, i.e., a case in which a government employee ’ s allegedly wanton or reckless behavior is at issue, these general pleading rules still apply. ” Id. at ¶ 11 , citing Civ.R

. 9(B)

. Thus, “ when a complaint invokes the exception to a government employee ’ s immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b), notice pleading suffices and the plaintiff may not be held to a heightened pleading standard or expected to plead the factual circumstances surrounding an allegation of wanton or reckless behavior with particularity. ” Id. , citing Parmertor v. Chardon Local Schools
, 11th Dist.
No. 2014

- L

- 129 , 2016

- Oh io

- 761, ¶ 49

- 51 ; Thompson v. Buckeye Joint Vocational School
Dist. , 5th Dist. No. 2015 AP 08 0047 , 2016

- Ohio

- 2804, ¶ 3 1 ; and York
, Adm r

. v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol
, 60 Ohio St.3d 143, 144

- 45 (1991)

. {¶ 10} The question before us, then, is whether R.G.’s complaint against appellants was sufficient to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings. When analyzing aNo. 2 3 AP

- 665 4

Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings , a court construes all material allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non

moving party. Provens v. Woodridge Place Apts. , 10th Dist. No. 22AP

- 760, 2023

- Ohio

1388, ¶ 8, citing Zhelezny v. Olesh , 10th Dist. No. 12AP

- 681, 2013

- Ohio

- 4337, ¶ 8. Then
,

“ ‘ [d] ismissal is appropriate under Civ.R. 12(C) when * * * it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him or her to relief. ’ ” Maternal
Grandmother at ¶ 13, quoting Reister v. Gardner , 164 Ohio St.3d 546, 2020

- Ohio

- 5484,
¶ 17, citing State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV
, Inc. v. Pontious , 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 570 ( 1996). In other words, a court grants a motion if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Edwards v. Adrenalin Trampoline Park
, L

. L

. C

. , 10th Dist. No. 19AP

- 83,

2020

- Ohio

- 280, ¶ 11, citing Easter v. Complete Gen. Constr. Co. , 10th Dist. No. 06AP

- 763,

2007

- Ohio

- 1297, ¶ 8 , citing Brown v. Wood Cty. Bd. o f Elections , 79 Ohio App.3d 474, 477 (6th Dist.1992)
, and Peterson v. Teodosio , 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 165

- 66 (1973). The
Civ.R. 12(C) motion challenges “ ‘ the allegations of the complaint and presents a question
of law.’ ” Provens at ¶ 8 , quoting Zhelezny at ¶ 9. Accordingly, w e review de novo a trial
court’s decision regarding a motion for j udgment on the pleadings. Id. , citing
RotoSolutions
, Inc. v. Crane Plastics Siding
, L.L.C. , 10th Dist. No. 13AP

- 1, 2013

- Ohio

4343, ¶ 13 , and Franks v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
, 195 Ohio App.3d 114 , 2011

- Ohio

2048, ¶ 5 ( 10th Dist.)

. {¶ 11} In asserting claims for survivorship and wrongful death, R.G. contend ed appellants behaved wantonly and recklessly . In particular, the complaint allege d appellants placed A.G. and her brothers in the custody of Richard and Sonja , disregarding R.G .’s specific warning they are “not only unfit to care for children, but dangerous to [A.G.] and
her brothers.” ( Compl. at ¶ 80

. ) The complaint also underscored appellants’ failure to

remove A.G. from Richard and Sonja’s custody even after it became “apparent they we re engaging in abusive behavior.” ( Compl. at ¶ 81

. ) Citing SCCS’s own records, t he complaint
detailed specific examples of abuse suffered by A.G. and her brothers while in the custody of Richard and Sonja. {¶ 12} The complaint put appellants “ on notice of the claims against them and
rais [ed] the possibility that the exception to their statutory immunity underNo. 2 3 AP

- 665 5

R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) might apply. ” Maternal Grandmother at ¶ 15

. Had the complaint more vaguely asserted that SCCS employees acted in a wanton and reckless manner , such
an accusation may or may not have stated a valid claim

. In contrast to this hypothetical,
R.G.’s complaint involve d SCCS employees who allegedly had some involvement with A.G.’s

case. S pecifically , it alleged appellants engaged i n acts and omissions in the handling of
A.G.’s case that, if proved, qualify as wanton and reckless conduct that led to her death

. This was enough to satisfy the notice pleading standard

. Construing all material allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of R.G. , we cannot at this early stage determine that no set of facts would entitle R.G. to relief. S ee Provens at ¶ 8; Maternal Grandmother at ¶ 13

. A judgment on the pleadings would therefore be
premature , and R.G. may continue his case against appellants on remand.
IV. Conclusion {¶ 13} Based on the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not err in denying appellants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly, appellants’ sole assignment of error is overruled. We affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and remand the matter to that court for further proceedings

. Judgment affirmed ; cause remanded

. LUPER SCHUSTER and BEATTY BLUNT, J J., concur.