Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

A Political Subdivision Has the Burden of Demonstrating that It Qualifies for Statutory Immunity at the Summary Judgment Stage

In the case of Elias v. City of Akron, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29107, 2020-Ohio-480, an Ohio appellate court held that a political subdivision has the burden of demonstrating that it qualifies for statutory immunity at the summary judgment stage.

In this case, a couple sued a city after the couple were launched from their motorcycles after hitting a sink hole. The city raised the defense of political subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 and moved for summary judgment arguing that it was entitled to statutory immunity because the couple failed to prove that city employees exercised discretion with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.

The Ohio appellate court held that it is the party asserting an affirmative defense that has the burden of proof at the summary judgment stage. The Ohio appellate court determined that the city failed to demonstrate that its employees properly exercised discretion and, thus, held that the city was not entitled to statutory immunity.

To read this case, click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing like the Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.