The Akron Legal News

Justices: Political subdivision is not immune when wanton misconduct is involved

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: April 1, 2013

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently issued a 7-0 opinion that a city is not immune from actions when its medical-emergency personnel provide services that constitute willful or wanton misconduct.

“The complaint filed in this case alleges that the city of Akron and its employees provided emergency medical services negligently, recklessly, and wantonly; wanton misconduct, pursuant to R.C. 4765.49(B), is an exception to political-subdivision immunity, and the complaint therefore states a claim upon which relief may be granted,” Ohio Supreme Court Justice Terrence O’Donnell wrote for the court.

Case summary states that Andrea Riffle called the city of Akron Fire Department EMS in the early morning of Dec. 26, 2008, after she started experiencing serious vaginal bleeding. At the time, Riffle was in her third trimester of pregnancy.

Company Officer Todd Kelly, paramedic Stacie Frabotta, and medics Peter Mattucci and Thomas Whatley responded to the call and took Riffle’s vital signs, but failed to assess the unborn child.

They also did not transport Riffle to the hospital. The responding staff contacted a private ambulance service and that service took Riffle to the labor and delivery unit in Akron City Hospital.

The doctors there found problems with the fetal heart rate and performed an emergency cesarean section. The child survived for three days and doctors determined that Riffle had experienced a placental abruption.

Riffle and her husband sued the city of Akron, several of its emergency medical personnel and the private ambulance service alleging they acted negligently, recklessly and wantonly to cause the death of their daughter.

The city argued that it was immune and moved for judgment on the pleadings.

The Summit County Court found that the Ohio Revised Code provides an exception to political-subdivision immunity for the willful or wanton misconduct of emergency medical services. The trial court denied the city’s motion for judgment on those grounds and the city appealed to the 9th District Court of Appeals.

After reaching similar findings, the 9th District agreed that the city was not immune from liability and affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

On review, the justices noted that R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) states that a political subdivision is not liable for injury caused by an employee in connection with a governmental or proprietary function, such as emergency medical services, except as provided in Division B.

“Division (B)(5) establishes an exception to immunity when civil liability is expressly imposed upon a political subdivision by the Revised Code, and relevant to this case, R.C. 4765.49(B) provides that a political subdivision is liable for injury arising out of any actions taken by a first responder,” O’Donnell stated.

The state argued that the two sections of the revised code did not conflict, but rather that R.C. 4765.49 served as an additional immunity defense under R.C. 2744.02(A)(7).

The justices, however, found that the sections were not in conflict and held that R.C. 2744.02 granted general immunity to political subdivisions except when civil liability is imposed by another section of the revised code.

They further stated that R.C. 4765.49(B) imposed that civil liability when emergency medical services provide services that constitute willful or wanton misconduct.

“After considering the plain meaning and reviewing the history of these statutes, it is manifest that the legislature intended R.C. 4765.49(B) to expressly impose liability on political subdivisions within the meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) by providing an exception to the immunity of political subdivisions when emergency medical services are provided in a manner that constitutes willful or wanton misconduct,” O’Donnell wrote.

The justices maintained that Riffle’s complaint alleged that Akron’s medical-emergency personnel acted with willful or wanton misconduct, causing injuries to her unborn daughter. The complaint satisfied the requirements of the exception to immunity and the justices ruled that it stated a claim for which relief could be granted.

“Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.”

Attempts to contact the Akron Director of Law for the city and Riffle’s attorney at Kohnen and Patton LLP were unsuccessful prior to press deadline.

The case is cited Riffle v. Physicians and Surgeons Ambulance Serv. Inc., case No. 2013-Ohio-989.

[Back]