In the case of Glenn v. Columbus, 2016-Ohio-7011, an Ohio appellate court found that a “reasonable jury could conclude that [a firefighter’s] conduct of not activating Engine 32’s electronic siren during [an] emergency run, and entering the intersection at 35 m.p.h. against a red light, despite an observable vehicle continuing to move toward the intersection, constituted reckless conduct,” which would be an exception to the firefighter’s immunity. Glenn at ¶ 30.
This case demonstrates the different levels of misconduct that plaintiffs can attempt to use in order to defeat individual governmental employee immunity and how courts distinguish between these levels. The matter involved a deadly collision between an automobile and a city fire truck. The Ohio appellate court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the firefighter’s conduct in driving through the intersection against a right light and with an observable vehicle in motion could constitute reckless conduct, that is, a conscious disregard of or indifference to a known or obvious risk of harm. However, the Ohio appellate court determined that no reasonable jury could conclude that this same conduct constitutes willful misconduct, that is, the firefighter “drove Engine 32 into the intersection with the purpose of causing harm to another,” or wanton misconduct, “that is, [the firefighter] failed to exercise ‘any care’ toward other motorists.” Glenn at ¶¶21,22.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
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.