Court Opinion

ID: 9802009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:57:22.49585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:57.400629
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
concurring.
*348Cooper & 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.
{¶ 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 Marshal, 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-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 it, 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.