Lewis v. Cleveland
Decision Date | 02 August 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 63314,63314 |
Parties | LEWIS, Appellant, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
John E. Duda, Cleveland, for appellant.
Danny R. Williams, Director of Law and Drew A. Carson, Asst. Director of Law, Cleveland, for appellee.
Plaintiff-appellant Sherry Lewis ("appellant") appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant-appellee city of Cleveland ("the city"). The allegations in appellant's complaint alleged that she suffered personal injury, damages and losses as a direct and proximate result of a collision with a city fire truck on November 20, 1989.
The city's motion for summary judgment was premised upon the immunity granted to the city under the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act ("the Act"), R.C. Chapter 2744. That section applies to causes of action against political subdivisions or their employees for injuries to persons on or after November 20, 1985. Specifically, the city's motion contended that R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(b) barred appellant's cause of action since the city's fire truck was responding to a fire alarm at the time of the collision.
Appellant, in her brief in opposition to the city's motion for summary judgment, argued that R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(b) violates Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution and the equal protection and substantive due process guarantees of the United States Constitution. The appellant's brief in opposition did not dispute the facts as developed by the city in its motion for summary judgment.
Summary judgment was entered in favor of the city. The instant appeal followed.
Appellant raises one assignment of error which provides:
"The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellee immunity under Revised Code § 2744.02(B)(1)(b) and consequently erred in granting defendant-appellee's motion for summary judgment because Revised Code § 2744.02(B)(1)(b) is unconstitutional."
Summary judgment shall not be rendered unless there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, which is adverse to the nonmoving party. Toledo's Great Eastern Shoppers City, Inc. v. Abde's Black Angus Steak House No. III, Inc. (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 198, 201, 24 OBR 426, 428, 494 N.E.2d 1101, 1103; Civ.R. 56(C). Accordingly, an order granting summary judgment will be upheld where, construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, the record discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 4 O.O.3d 466, 471, 364 N.E.2d 267, 273.
R.C. 2744.02 provides in relevant part:
Therefore, under the Act, a political subdivision is immune from liability for acts of its firefighters in operating motor vehicles while at a fire, or proceeding toward a suspected fire, or responding to an emergency alarm and the operation of the vehicle does not constitute willful or wanton misconduct.
Initially, we note that "[a]ll legislative enactments enjoy a presumption of constitutionality." Sedar v. Knowlton Constr. Co. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 193, 203 551 N.E.2d 938, 947, citing Hardy v. VerMeulen (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 45, 48, 512 N.E.2d 626, 629. A statute can be declared invalid only when its unconstitutionality is shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Bd. of Edn. v. Walter (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 368, 376, 12 O.O.3d 327, 332, 390 N.E.2d 813, 819.
Appellant contends that R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) is unconstitutional because it violates Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
Section 16, Article I provides:
Initially we note that a state may abolish or modify common-law rights so long as "it is to achieve a permissible legislative objective." Strock v. Pressnell (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 207, 214, 527 N.E.2d 1235, 1241. Unless otherwise prohibited by constitutional limits, a state may modify or abolish entire common-law actions. Id.; Thompson v. Ford (1955), 164 Ohio St. 74, 79, 57 O.O. 96, 98, 128 N.E.2d 111, 114.
Furthermore, it has recently been held by the Sandusky County Court of Appeals that the Political Subdivision Immunity Act, R.C. 2744.01 et seq., does not violate Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Padilla v. YMCA of Sandusky Cty. (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 676, 605 N.E.2d 1268. We agree with the holding therein and specifically find that R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(b) does not violate Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution as the immunity provided for achieves the permissible legislative objective of conserving a political subdivision's fiscal resources.
Appellant next contends that R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) is unconstitutional because it violates the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Review of the record below reveals that the appellant failed to raise this issue at the trial court level and raises it for the first time on appeal. Without considering the merits of the issue presented, we find that the appellant has waived review of this issue by failing to raise it at the trial court level.
In State v. Awan (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 22 OBR 199, 489 N.E.2d 277, the Supreme Court held in the syllabus:
"Failure to raise at the trial court level the issue of the constitutionality of a statute or its application, which issue is apparent at the time of trial, constitutes a waiver of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Varshock v. Cal. Dep't of Forestry
...of fire department employees in running steam fire engine against horse and buggy while going to fire); Lewis v. Cleveland (1993) 89 Ohio App.3d 136, 623 N.E.2d 1233, 1234–1235 (immunity applies to firefighter's operation of motor vehicle while at fire, proceeding to fire, or responding to ......
-
Jones v. Metrohealth Med. Ctr.
...the fiscal resources of political subdivisions. Menefee , 49 Ohio St.3d at 29, 550 N.E.2d 181 ; Lewis v. Cleveland , 89 Ohio App.3d 136, 139, 623 N.E.2d 1233 (8th Dist.1993). {¶ 75} Stewart next complains that the court's application of R.C. 2744.05 violates her son's right to a trial by ju......
-
Jones v. Metrohealth Med. Ctr.
...in conserving the fiscal resources of political subdivisions. Menefee, 49 Ohio St.3d at 29, 550 N.E.2d 181 ; Lewis v. Cleveland, 89 Ohio App.3d 136, 139, 623 N.E.2d 1233 (8th Dist.1993). {¶ 74} Stewart next complains that the court's application of R.C. 2744.05 violates her son's right to a......
-
Jones v. Metrohealth Med. Ctr., 102916
...in conserving the fiscal resources of political subdivisions. Menefee, 49 Ohio St.3d at 29, 550 N.E.2d 181; Lewis v. Cleveland, 89 Ohio App.3d 136, 139, 623 N.E.2d 1233 (8th Dist.1993). Page 35 {¶74} Stewart next complains that the court's application of R.C. 2744.05 violates her son's righ......