Moore v. Lorain Metro Housing Authority, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-1250
Ohio’s Sovereign-Immunity Statue, R.C. 2744, provides immunity to governmental agencies while performing governmental functions. Until recently, there was a split of authority amongst Ohio courts as to whether this statutory immunity extended to the operation of public housing. This question was recently answered by the Supreme Court of Ohio when it held that the operation of a public housing authority is a governmental function under R.C. 2744.01(C)(2), rather than a proprietary function, and further held that R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) applies as an exception to the general grant of immunity.
In Moore v. Lorain Metro Housing Authority, Danielle Moore brought suit against Lorain Metropolitan Housing Authority (“LMHA”) after two of her four children died in a fire. Ms. Moore claimed that because LMHA removed the apartment’s only working smoke detector and negligently failed to replace it, she was unable to rescue all of her children.
The trial court granted summary judgment on behalf of LMHA, holding that it was a political subdivision entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2744. Further, the Court went on to hold that none of the exceptions to immunity applied to the instant matter. On appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed by concluding that LMHA does not perform a governmental function and remanded the case for further proceedings. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court then went on to reverse the court of appeals and indicated that, while LMHA does perform a governmental function, there are exceptions that apply to the general grant of immunity afforded to political subdivisions, which applied to the instant matter.
R.C. 2744 involves a three tier analysis in determining whether a political subdivision is protected against tort liability and, therefore, not liable in damages. First, R.C. 2744(A)(1) classifies the functions of political subdivisions into governmental and proprietary functions. The second tier analysis then becomes whether any of the exceptions contained in R.C. 2744.02(B) apply. If an exception is found to apply, a consideration of the application of R.C. 2744.03 then becomes the relevant portion of the third tier analysis.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that LMHA, as a metropolitan housing authority, performs a specific governmental function in that it “promotes or preserves the public peace, health, safety, or welfare and * * * involves activities that are customarily engaged in by nongovernmental persons.” The Court rationalized that “[h]ousing projects are designed to eliminate slum conditions, and the repair and maintenance of public housing are attendant powers of the public housing authority, performed to further the elimination of slum conditions.”
The next analysis then becomes whether or not an exception to the political subdivision immunity applies under R.C. 2744.02(B). In this regard, the Court analyzed two (2) separate exceptions and determined that while R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) did not apply in the instant matter, R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) would serve as an exception to immunity. Specifically, the Court held that (B)(5) did not apply as this section of the Revised Code explicitly states that a political subdivision is “liable for injury, death, or loss to person or property when civil liability is expressly imposed upon a political subdivision by a section of the Revised Code.” The Court held that, while there is a statute that imposes liabilities concerning landlords and tenants, it does not expressly impose liability on the LMHA or any other political subdivision. Consequently, the exception did not apply to the instant matter.
However, in analyzing R.C. 2744.02(B)(4), the Supreme Court determined that such an exception applies to the immunity that would otherwise apply to LMHA. Specifically, this section states that political subdivisions are liable for injury, death, or loss to person or property that is “caused by the negligence of their employees and that occurs within or on the grounds of, and due to physical defects within or on the grounds of, buildings that are used in connection with the performance of a governmental function, including, but not limited to, office buildings and court houses * * *.” Based on the above stated exception, the Supreme Court held that, if the trial court finds that the deaths that occurred in the instant case were due to a physical defect occurring on its property, then liability would attach. Based on this finding, the Supreme Court remanded this matter back to the trial court level in order to determine whether the absence of a required smoke detector is a “physical defect” occurring on the grounds of LMHA’s property.
This is a significant case in that is will serve to dissolve the widely recognized immunity granted to political subdivisions. Based on the general conditions of many metropolitan housing authorities, this case may open a flood gate of future cases involving allegations of physical defects against housing authorities, which will certainly affect many of our clients.
To request a copy of this decision, or to discuss concerns as to how the Supreme Court’s Moore ruling may affect a present or future case, please feel free to contact one of our Government/Public Entity Liability Practice Group Attorneys.