Ohio Supreme Court: Families Suing Reckless Government Employees Need Only Ordinary Notice Pleading

Published December 9, 2021 · Ohio Court Decisions

When a child dies in circumstances that a public agency was supposed to watch over, the family's grief is often joined by a hard question: did the people responsible for protecting this child do their jobs? On November 23, 2021, the Supreme Court of Ohio decided a case that makes it easier for families to have that question answered in court.

The case is Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services, 2021-Ohio-4096. The Court held that when a family's complaint claims a government employee acted wantonly or recklessly, the family does not have to meet a special, heightened pleading standard. Ohio's ordinary "notice pleading" rules apply.

What the case was about

A two-year-old girl died while living with her parents. Her maternal grandmother, who served as administrator of the child's estate, brought wrongful death and survival claims against Hamilton County, its commissioners, the county's children services agency, and the individual caseworkers assigned to the child's case. The complaint alleged that the caseworkers ignored the mother's history with her other children, failed to properly investigate a report of possible abuse from hospital staff, and overlooked clear signs during a home visit less than a month before the child's death.

The trial court dismissed the entire case on immunity grounds. The First District Court of Appeals agreed that the county itself was immune. On the caseworkers, the panel split, and the majority held that the complaint did not allege enough facts. The grandmother appealed that part of the decision.

Immunity and its exception for reckless conduct

Ohio law generally protects political subdivisions, such as counties and cities, and their employees from lawsuits. But the immunity for individual employees has limits. Under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b), an employee is not immune when the employee's acts or omissions were "with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner."

The Court restated what those words mean. Reckless conduct is "the conscious disregard of or indifference to a known or obvious risk of harm to another that is unreasonable under the circumstances." Wanton misconduct is the failure to exercise any care toward those to whom a duty is owed when there is a great probability of harm. Both require "something more" than negligence.

What the Court decided

The question was whether that "something more" means a family must plead its case with extra detail from the start. The Court said no.

Ohio is a notice-pleading state. Outside a few areas, such as fraud, a complaint needs only "a short and plain statement of the claim." The Court held that when a complaint invokes the exception to a government employee's immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b), "notice pleading suffices." The plaintiff may not be held to a heightened standard or required to plead the facts behind an allegation of wanton or reckless behavior with particularity.

Applying that rule, the Court found the grandmother's complaint sufficient. It put the caseworkers on notice of the claims and raised the possibility that the exception to immunity applies. The claims against the caseworkers will go back to the trial court.

The Court was careful to add that it was not deciding the merits. To win, the family will still have to prove that the caseworkers' conduct really was wanton or reckless. Two justices concurred only in the judgment. They agreed this complaint was sufficient, but they would have analyzed it differently and suggested the Court may someday consider a stricter "plausibility" standard for complaints.

Why this matters to families

It keeps cases alive long enough to find the truth. In cases against public agencies, much of the important evidence, such as case files, visit notes, and internal communications, is in the agency's hands. A family often cannot describe exactly what each employee knew until it has had discovery. A rule requiring detailed facts at the very first step would end many cases before that evidence is ever seen. Our guide chapter on how cases are resolved explains discovery.

The agency and the employee are treated differently. Here, the county remained immune, but the individual employees did not, at least at this stage. Families should understand that the rules for suing a public body and for suing its employees are not the same. Our page on government and police wrongful death cases explains more.

A grandparent can serve as the personal representative. A wrongful death action is brought in the name of the personal representative of the estate, under R.C. 2125.02(A)(1), for the benefit of the surviving spouse, children, parents, and other next of kin. The personal representative does not have to be a parent. Our probate chapter on who can serve explains how the probate court chooses.

Two claims, one case. The grandmother brought both a wrongful death claim and a survival claim. Our guide explains the difference between them.

A word to families who have lost a child

Few losses compare to the death of a child, and fewer still to a death that others might have prevented. Our page on child wrongful death is written for families facing that loss. If you have questions about a public agency's role, you are entitled to ask them.