In the case of Smathers v. Glass, 2022-Ohio-4595, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a jury must make findings of fact, based upon the underlying evidence in this case, to determine whether children services agency employees wrongfully caused the death of a child by “wantonly” and “recklessly” failing to protect the deceased child from the risk of injury from abuse or neglect, which — if true — would be an exception to the statutory immunity afforded to political subdivision employees pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b).
In this case, a grandmother argued that children services agency employees should not be entitled to statutory immunity because an issue of disputed fact existed as to whether the R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) immunity exception applied based upon evidence that agency employees acted wantonly or recklessly by failing to protect a deceased child from the risk of injury from abuse or neglect based upon, by way of example only, (1) the family’s history of instability; (2) the father’s past addiction and the problems attendant to those difficulties; (3) the lack of a court order determining who had custody of the child; (4) the recommendation from multiple doctors that the child should not be released to the care of the parents; (5) the failure of the agency to obtain medical records for nearly thirty days after the child was released from the hospital; (6) the hospital’s discharge documents indicating that that there was overwhelming evidence concerning physical abuse and neglect; (7) the failure of the agency employees to follow up with the physicians to understand the child abuse and neglect concerns and conclusions of the physicians; (8) the failure of the agency employees to determine the whereabouts of the child; (9) the failure of the agency employees to address the grandmother’s concerns regarding excessive heat in the child’s bedroom, the safety of the crib apparatus, and the manner in which the child was being kept in the bedroom given that the child could jump out of the crib; and (10) the conscious disregarded and/or indifference of agency employees to known risks after observing the conditions of the bedroom three weeks before the child’s death. In response, the agency employees argued that no material facts were in dispute and that such facts did not rise to the level wanton or reckless conduct as a matter of law. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the grandmother.
In support of its decision, the Ohio Supreme Court first explained that “determining whether issues of disputed fact exist is different from making findings of facts.” 2022-Ohio-4595 at ¶ 32. The Ohio Supreme Court then explained that, in determining whether the R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c) immunity exception applies to political subdivision employees, courts “must determine not whether the [political subdivision] employees acted in a reckless or wanton manner but whether reasonable minds could find that they acted in such a manner when the facts presented are viewed in a light most favorable to [the plaintiff]” and, “[i]f the undisputed evidence shows that the [political subdivision] employees’ actions were not reckless or wanton, then the agency employees are immune and summary judgment is proper.” Id. at ¶ 34. After applying this standard of review, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the agency employees acted wantonly or recklessly in failing to protect the deceased child from the risk of injury from abuse or neglect and, therefore, remanded the matter to the trial court to make findings of facts.
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.