Close Window

County Employee Immunity Because She Did Not Intend to Cause Harm

In the case Clark v. Campbell, 2020-Ohio-3333, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 2268, an Ohio appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying summary judgment to the county employee because she was entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6), since she did not intend to cause harm, breach a known duty through an ulterior motive or ill will, or have a dishonest purpose. There was no genuine issue of material fact as to her operation of the van or suggestion that her operation of the van was characterized by conscious disregard or to another that was unreasonable under the circumstances. Although the county board of developmental disabilities was a political subdivision, as defined by R.C. 2744.01(F), and was capable of being sued, because the employee was immune, there was no basis for applying respondeat superior to the board. Thus, it was entitled to summary judgment.

In this case, plaintiff was an ATV driver that brought a negligence action against defendant who was an employee of county disabilities board. The action arose from a collision at a bike path crossing during a search for a missing child. Both the van driver and the ATV driver were involved in the search.

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 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Your email address will not be published.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.