Colley v. Crabtree

• Docket Number: Case No. 22CA3997
• Decision Date: 02 February 2024
• Citation: Colley v. Crabtree, 235 N.E.3d 562 (Ohio App. 2024)
• Parties: Marjean Colley Administrator of the Estate of Kyle Dana COLLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel Travis CRABTREE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

235 N.E.3d 562

2024-Ohio-437

Marjean ColleyAdministrator of the Estate of Kyle Dana COLLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Daniel Travis CRABTREE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Case No. 22CA3997

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Scioto County.

Released: February 2, 2024

James H. Banks, Dublin, Ohio, for Appellant.

Andrew N. Yosowitz, Teetor Westfall LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Wilkin, J.

{¶1}Appellant, Marjean Colley("Colley"), appeals a Seioto County Court of Common Pleas judgment entry that dismissed her complaint against appellees because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.Appellees include Scioto County Sheriff’s Department/Scioto County, Ohio, and Scioto County employees, Denver Triggs and Matthew D. Spencer.Pertinent to this appeal are Colley’s claims against appellees for their roles in allegedly conducting or permitting an "insufficient investigation" into the cause of her son’s death and subsequent alleged cover-up of that investigation.

{¶2} Colley first asserts that the trial judge erred in not recusing himself from this case.Filing an affidavit of prejudice with the Ohio Supreme Court pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 is the exclusive means of seeking recusal of a judge.Because Colley never availed herself of this provision, we overrule her first assignment of error.

{¶3} In her second, third, and fourth assignments of error, Colley asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).After a de novo review of this case, we find that Colley’s complaint fails to state a cognizable cause of action upon which relief could be granted against any of the appellees.Therefore, we overrule Colley’s second, third, and fourth assignments of error.

{¶4} Accordingly, we affirm the trial courts judgment of dismissal.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶5} On October 28, 2021, Colley filed a complaint that asserted ten "claims" against Daniel Crabtree, Sydney Thompson, unknown agencies, John/Jane Doe(s), and appellees.

{¶6} Claims one through four alleged that on November 3, 2019, Crabtree and Thompson went to Colley’s son’s ("decedent") home located in McDermott, Scioto County, Ohio intending to harm him.Crabtree and Doe(s) beat the decedent, while other persons watched.As a direct and proximate result of the beating, the decedent suffered injuries that resulted in his death.The complaint alleged that Crabtree’s actions constituted assault and battery, and resulted in the wrongful death of decedent.Assault and battery, wrongful death, along with a survival claim were alleged by Colley against Crabtree, Thompson, and the Doe(s), who are not parties to this appeal,

{¶7} The fifth claim alleged that after the decedent’s body was discovered on November 3, 2019, Triggs and Spencer, employees of the Scioto County Sheriff’s Department and Doe(s) arrived at the decedent’s home.It alleged that Spencer was good friends with Crabtree’s brother and subsequently worked for Crabtree’s brother.The fifth claim further contended:

Without investigation, said [Appellees] determined that the cause of [the decedent’s] death was a self-injected drug overdose despite the following: (A) No needles were found in the house or in [decedent’s] arm; (B) No drugs were found near or in the house; (C) The house had been ransacked; (D) Furniture and belongings belonging to the decedent were broken and strewn about the area where [the decedent] was found; (E) There were blood splatters on the walls and floor; and (F) The couch upon which [the decedent] was found was soaked with blood, as was the floor beneath the couch.

{¶8} The claim additionally alleged that to further support their determination that the decedent died of an overdose, appellees canceled a request for the Scioto County Coroner to come to the decedent’s home and instead had the decedent’s body delivered to the Montgomery County Coroner’s Office.Appellees also filed a report that concluded the decedent died of an overdose.

{¶9} Finally, the fifth claim alleged that the following facts were known or should have been known and/or reported to the appellees:

(A) In the photos of the home [the decedent’s] body had been repositioned on the couch from the position when his body was initially found to the time that [Triggs and Spencer] took pictures; (B)[Decedent’s body] was not examined for injury or damage, nor to determine whether he had been forcefully administered a "hot shot" or other drug to cause an overdose; (C)[Triggs and Spencer] refused to gather evidence regarding the blood splatters on the walls, couch and floor; (D)[Decedent’s] I-Pad was stolen and used by someone after his death to suggest that he was still alive; (E) Money was missing from [the decedent’s] billfold despite the fact that witnesses confirmed that he had cash in the billfold on the day of his death and despite the fact that he allegedly had an additional $40.00 which defendant Thompson claimed she had paid him that day for a past debt; (F) Witnesses reported that there was "bad blood" between defendant Crabtree and [decedent] and a man believed to be Crabtree was seen near the back of [decedent’s] house on the date of the [decedent’s] death; (G)Defendant Thompson claimed she pulled a needle out of the [decedent’s] hand but no needle was found at the residence; (H) Witnesses with information regarding the [decedent’s] death were not questioned and/or their statements were taken as truth, without investigation or corroboration, to support [Triggs’ and Spencer’s] faulty determination of drug overdose as [decedent’s] cause of death[.]

{¶10} The sixth claim alleged that the appellees conspired with each other to cover up the true cause of the decedent’s death (beating), and the identity of his killer (Crabtree).These acts were alleged to have been performed under the direction and approval of the appellees acting in furtherance of each of their business interests collectively or individually.

{¶11} The seventh claim alleged that appellee, Scioto County Sheriff’s Department/Scioto County, Ohio (hereinafter referred to as "Scioto County" or the "County"), adopted policies "whereby misfeasance, malfeasance, negligence, and cover-up" by its employees were "uncontrolled and unpunished."The County knew or should have known of these acts and taken corrective measures to stop the wrongful conduct.These "extreme and outrageous" acts were performed by Scioto County’s employees herein to the detriment of Colley.

{¶12} The eighth and ninth claims alleged that the appellees’ actions herein were performed "knowingly, wantonly, willfully, recklessly, and/or intentionally, negligently, maliciously and without cause, justification or excuse."

{¶13} The tenth claim alleged that appellees’ actions herein constituted negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress upon Colley and the decedent’s beneficiaries.

{¶14} As a direct and proximate cause of all the aforementioned claims, the complaint alleged that Colley, the decedent, and decedent’s beneficiaries suffered damages against appellees jointly and severally in excess of $25,000, reasonable attorney fees, and any further relief the court might award.

{¶15} On November 24, 2021, appellees filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Colley’s complaint alleging that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

{¶16}Appellees first argued that Scioto County did not have the capacity to be sued.Alternatively, appellees alleged that the County was immune from liability under R.C. Chapter 2744.

{¶17} The motion also maintained that the appellees took no part in any actions that contributed to the decedents’ injuries or death.Rather, they were allegedly committed by persons who were not employed with Scioto County.Therefore, claims one through four for assault and battery, survivorship, and wrongful death against Crabtree, Thompson, and Doe(s) failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against the appellees.

{¶18}The appellees further asserted that Ohio does not recognize a claim for insufficient investigation as alleged in claim five.Thus, appellees argue that Colley’s fifth claim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

{¶19}Appellees also argued that Colley’s sixth claim alleging conspiracy was not pled with sufficient specificity, and instead made vague or conclusory allegations and therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.Colley’s complaint lacked "any facts" that the trial court could interpret as supporting a finding that Crabtree and Thompson engaged in a conspiracy with appellees.Colley simply concluded that appellees acted in concert to conceal the true cause of the decedent’s death without any factual support.Therefore, appellees argued that Colley’s sixth claim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

{¶20}Appellees argued that Colley’s seventh claim directed only at Scioto County failed as a matter of law because even if Colley alleged a viable cause of action against the County, it was immune from liability.

{¶21} Colley’s eighth and ninth claims alleged that appellees acted recklessly, wantonly, willfully, etc.Appellees argued such claims are not torts, but instead "are levels of culpability needed to overcome" immunity of a viable tort.For that reason, appellees contended that Colley’s eighth and ninth claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

{¶22} Finally, Colley’s tenth claim alleging negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress also failed as a matter of law.For a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, appellees cited High v. Howard for the proposition that "Ohio courts have limited recovery to where the plaintiff is a bystander to an accident or was in fear of physical consequences of his own person."64 Ohio St.3d 82, 85-86, 1992-Ohio-125, 592 N.E.2d 818(1992).Colley was not a bystander...