MRR&K Wins in Four Courts on One Case by Persistent Litigant

In Svette v. Caplinger, the firm achieved a successful result for a municipal defendant in four different courts. Plaintiff Daniel Svette was seriously injured in a head-on collision with an intoxicated driver. He filed suit against the driver, as well as Ross County, for failing to intercept the intoxicated driver and prevent the collision. He made both federal and state law claims, and the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

James A. Climer and Michael S. Loughry achieved a summary judgment on behalf of the Ross County defendants in the federal court, as that court agreed with the defense position that substantive due process principles did not require the state to protect a private citizen from private violence. Svette v. Caplinger, S.D. Ohio Case No. 2:04-CV-780, 2005 WL 1182368. No appeal was taken from this decision and the state law claims were remanded to the Ross County Common Pleas Court.

Mr. Climer and Mr. Loughry then successfully achieved summary judgment at the trial court level in Ross County. By application of Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2744, the Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, the trial court found that Ross County was absolutely immune because the conduct at issue was a governmental function, the provision of law enforcement services. The trial court also found that the Ross County employees named in the case were immune because they were in the course and scope of their employment and there was no evidence such that any reasonable jury could find that their conduct was with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. John T. McLandrich and Frank H. Scialdone, working with Mr. Climer, obtained unanimous affirmation by the Fourth District Court of Appeals. Plaintiff Daniel Svette appealed all aspects of the trial court’s decision, most forcefully arguing that former R.C. § 4931.49(A) explicitly imposed liability on Sheriff Ron Nichols and Dispatcher Nancy Haggard for the operation of a 9-1-1 system. The Fourth District found that the statute, regarding the development of a 9-1-1 system, did not apply to the facts of the case. Svette v. Caplinger, Ross App. No. 06CA2910, 2007-Ohio-664.

Finally, the firm successfully defended against Mr. Svette’s efforts to have this matter taken up by the Ohio Supreme Court.