Torpey v. State, Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction

• Decision Date: 21 June 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-744,77-744
• Citation: 54 Ohio St.2d 398,377 N.E.2d 763
• Parties: , 8 O.O.3d 403 TORPEY, Appellee, v. The STATE of Ohio, DEPT. OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 398

54 Ohio St.2d 398

377 N.E.2d 763, 8 O.O.3d 403

TORPEY, Appellee, v. The STATE of Ohio, DEPT. OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION et al., Appellants.

No. 77-744.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

June 21, 1978.

Syllabus by the Court

Prior to February 7, 1978, a claimant who sued the state in the Court of Claims and joined in that suit state employees alleged to be acting within the scope of their employment in both their official and individual capacities was entitled to a jury trial under R.C. 2743.11 for the determination of the individual liability of state employees.

Appellee, John R. Torpey, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, filed a complaint in the Court of Claims against the state of Ohio, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, and various employees of the state in both their individual and official capacities. These employees included the Director of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the following employees of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility: the Superintendent, the associate superintendent, the director of medical services, a shift captain, two shift lieutenants, three correctional officers, and a nurse. The complaint alleged that the defendants committed various torts against appellee during the course of their employment, among these being assault, battery, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of appellee's constitutional rights including infliction of cruel and unusual punishment and denial of due process of law.

Appellee demanded a trial by jury in the Court of Claims for the purpose of determining the liability of the individual employees in their individual capacities. The motion for jury trial was overruled as to all claims.

The court found that appellee had failed to prove a claim against all defendants. At the close of appellee's case, the court, on motion, dismissed the defendant director and the defendants superintendent and associate superintendent with prejudice as to all claims made against them and ordered judgment for the other defendants, including the above-mentioned employees, and the state, and against appellee.

From the judgment of the trial court, appellee lodged his appeal in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. That court overruled all of appellee's several assignments of error with the exception of one: that appellee had been denied his right to have the liability of the individual state employees determined by a jury. The court held that the Court of Claims erred in refusing to impanel a jury to decide the factual matters involved in the determination of liability against the defendants individually, since that right is preserved inviolate whether their liability is determined in the Court of Claims through joinder with the state or in a common pleas court. Noting that appellee had demonstrated no prejudicial error in respect to his claim against the state, the court found that it was no longer necessary that the Court of Claims handle the case on remand. Thus it revised the Court of Claims' dismissal with prejudice against the defendants director, superintendent, and associate superintendent to be without prejudice and reversed the judgment granted in favor of the other individual defendants so that appellee's claim could be pursued in the appropriate common pleas court.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Thomas R. McGuire, Columbus, for appellee.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Gene W. Holliker, Columbus, for appellants.

CASTLE, Justice.

Appellants are appealing the decision of the Court of Appeals solely on the basis that a right to trial by jury in the Court of Claims did not exist for a claim against a state employee when it was alleged that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment.

By the enactment of the Court of Claims Act, R.C. Chapter 2743, the General Assembly waived the state's immunity from liability and gave its consent to be sued "in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties, subject to the limitations set forth in this chapter." R.C. 2743.02(A). This section recently has been changed by Am.Sub.H.B. No. 149, effective February 7, 1978, to read as follows:

"Sec. 2743.02(A). The state hereby waives, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE COMPLAINANT'S WAIVER OF HIS CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST STATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES, its immunity from liability and consents to be sued, and have its liability determined, in the court of claims create in this chapter in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties, subject to the limitations set forth in this chapter. To the extent that the state has previously consented to be sued, this chapter has no applicability.

"EXCEPT IN THE CASE...