On December 27, 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers pursuing suspects are entitled to the same level of immunity provided to all government employees under state law. The Court, in Argabrite v. Neer, held that officers, just as all other government employees, cannot be held liable unless they act in a wanton or reckless manner.
Pamela Argabrite was injured when her car was hit head-on by the vehicle of a burglary suspect who was engaged in a high speed chase with police. Argabrite was severely injured in the crash and sued the law enforcement officers involved in the chase, alleging negligence on their part. The trial court granted the officers summary judgment, holding that the officers did not engage in extreme or outrageous conduct, and therefore could not be found to be the proximate cause of the accident.
Pursuant to Ohio’s Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, O.R.C. § 2744.03(A)(6)(b), an employee of an Ohio political subdivision, such as a county, city or township, is immune from civil liability unless the employee acts with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.
An Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision; however, it disagreed with the lower court’s analysis which used proximate cause standard. Instead, the Court ruled that the appropriate standard for determining immunity is whether the law enforcement officials acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. The Court stated that these are rigorous standards that will in most circumstances be difficult to establish, especially with respect to a law-enforcement officer carrying out the statutory duty to arrest and detain a person violating the law.
The Court found that there was no evidence in this case that the officers had acted in such a way. The Court found that several of the officers were either not directly involved in the pursuit, or were involved only from a distance at reasonable speeds. There was no evidence on which a jury could conclude that the remaining officers acted with knowledge that they were either violating departmental policy or that the violations would in all probability result in injury. Without that evidence, there is no basis for a finding of wanton or recklessness conduct, and the officers are immune from liability.
This decision solidifies which standard will be used by Ohio courts to determine whether to grant law enforcement officers in many jurisdictions immunity from state law claims.
Please feel free to contact any FHKAD attorney at (614) 221-1216 with any questions on this case.