Opinion ID: 2829693
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statutory Immunity for Ohio State Law Claims

Text: Finally, the complaint also alleged a number of state law claims against Schmeltz and Gray—excessive force, failure to provide medical care, assault and battery, and wrongful death—that are imputed to Telb by virtue of Ohio Rev. Code § 311.05. Telb challenges the district court’s denial of statutory immunity to him for those claims. Claims brought against Telb in his official capacity are the equivalent of claims brought against the county as a government entity. Chesher, 477 F.3d at 796-97. There is a three-tiered analysis involved in determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability under Ohio law. Range v. Douglas, 763 F.3d 573, 582-83 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Lambert v. Clancy, 927 N.E.2d 585, 588 (Ohio 2010)); Elston v. Howland Local Schs., 865 N.E.2d 845, 848 (Ohio 2007). First, the court must determine if an entity qualifies for the general grant of immunity under Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.02: “a political subdivision is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a governmental or proprietary function.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2744.02(A)(1). Federal courts have held that sheriffs and sheriff’s deputies are considered employees of the county, which is a political subdivision of the state. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2744.01(F); Sanford v. Cnty. of Lucas, No. 3:07 CV 3588, 2009 WL 723227, at  1, 8 (N.D. Ohio, Mar. 16, 2009) (citing cases). Second, the court must determine if any of the exceptions to immunity apply. Lambert, 927 N.E.2d at 588. The exceptions include injuries, death or losses caused by various forms of negligence, or “when civil liability is expressly imposed upon the political subdivision by a section of the Revised Code.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2744.02(B)(1)-(5). Third, if an exception applies, the court assesses whether any of the defenses to liability listed in Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03 apply, enabling immunity to be reinstated. Lambert, 927 N.E.2d at 588. Whether an individual is personally liable is also assessed under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.03(A)(6), which provides that an employee is personally immune from Nos. 14-3134/3136/3137 Coley, et al. v. Lucas Cnty., et al. Page 15 liability unless “(a) [t]he employee’s acts or omissions were manifestly outside the scope of the employee’s employment or official responsibilities; (b) [t]he employee’s acts or omissions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner; [or] (c) [c]ivil liability is expressly imposed upon the employee by a section of the Revised Code.” Id. (quoting Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03(A)(6)). The district court found that Plaintiffs pled facts sufficient to allege that Telb was liable under a separate Ohio statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 311.05, and therefore the exception to immunity stated under Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.02(B)(5) applies. Ohio Rev. Code § 311.05 provides that “[t]he sheriff shall only be responsible for the neglect of duty or misconduct in office of any of his deputies if he . . . ratifies the neglect of duty or misconduct in office of the deputy.” “[R]atification can be shown by inaction or silence where the principal is fully informed of all of the material facts to the agent’s action.” Amato v. Heinika Ltd., No. 84479, 2005 WL 110441, at , 2 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2005). An individual has ratified an act if he is aware of the agent’s act and “takes a position inconsistent with non-affirmance. . . .” Id. “Evidence of tortious wrongdoing on the part of the deputies must be established before liability can be imputed to the sheriff.” Smith v. Redecker, No. 08CA33, 2010 WL 541355, at , 10 (Ohio Ct.