Gaul v. Grafton Correctional Inst.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Gaul v. Grafton Correctional Inst., 2005-Ohio-4464.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO www.cco.state.oh.us VICTOR GAUL : Plaintiff : v. CASE NO. 2003-09041 Judge Joseph T. Clark : DECISION GRAFTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, et al. : : Defendants : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} On June 30, 2005, defendants filed a second motion for partial summary judgment as to the issue of the civil immunity of Corrections Officer (CO) Heathcote. The motion is unopposed. The case is now before the court for a non-oral hearing on defendants motion for partial summary judgment. Civ.R. 56(C) and L.C.C.R. 4(D). {¶ 2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows: {¶ 3} *** Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits, answers to transcripts interrogatories, of evidence, and written written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the Case No. 2003-09041 -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party s favor. *** See, also, Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150; Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317. {¶ 4} R.C. 2743.02(F) reads, in part: {¶ 5} A civil action against an officer or employee, as defined in section 109.36 of the Revised Code, that alleges that the officer s or employee s conduct was manifestly outside the scope of his employment or official responsibilities, or that the officer, or employee acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner shall first be filed against the state in the court of claims, which has exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine initially, whether the officer or employee is entitled to personal immunity under section 9.86 of the Revised Code and whether the courts of common pleas have jurisdiction over the civil action. *** {¶ 6} R.C. 9.86 states, in part: {¶ 7} *** no officer or employee [of the state] shall be liable in any civil action that arises under the law of this state for damages or injury caused in the performance of his duties, unless the officer s or employee s actions were manifestly outside the scope of his employment or official responsibilities or unless the officer or employee acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. *** (Emphasis added.) {¶ 8} This case arises out of a workplace assault allegedly committed upon plaintiff by Heathcote. In the motion for partial summary judgment defendants argue that Heathcote acted manifestly outside the scope of his employment as a CO when he repeatedly pushed plaintiff and then struck him in the face. Case No. 2003-09041 {¶ 9} The -3- motion is directed JUDGMENT ENTRY only to Count Three of the complaint which reads as follows: {¶ 10} Defendants are liable for Mr. Heathcote s conduct pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(A) should it be determined that Mr. Heathcote has immunity from this lawsuit. {¶ 11} The issue of whether Heathcote is entitled to immunity is a question of law. Chitwood v. University Med. Ctr., Gen. Div. (May 5, 1998), Franklin App. No. 97API09-1235, citing Conley v. Shearer, 64 Ohio St.3d 284, 292, 1992-Ohio-133. However, the question whether he acted within the scope of his employment is one of fact. Chitwood, supra, citing Tschantz v. Ferguson (1989), 49 Ohio App.3d 9. {¶ 12} In support of the motion for partial summary judgment defendants submitted a stipulation of facts. Attached thereto are numerous documents containing information relevant to the incident in question. Among those documents are a CO s position description, the Ohio Highway Patrol Report of Investigation, relevant portions of defendants Standards of Employee Conduct, and the Notice of Disciplinary Action and Summary of Discipline taken against Heathcote. {¶ 13} issue Defendants first motion for summary judgment on this was denied because of defendants failure to comply with Civ.R. 56(E) and the existence of a question of fact concerning immunity. Those deficiencies have been eliminated by the stipulation which contains facts that require a determination that Heathcote acted manifestly outside the scope of employment in regard to his assault of plaintiff. demonstrate conclusively that The stipulated facts also Heathcote acted purpose, in bad faith, and in a wanton matter. with malicious Therefore, the Case No. 2003-09041 -4- JUDGMENT ENTRY court finds that Heathcote is not entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F). {¶ 14} Additionally, based upon this finding, the court concludes that defendants cannot be held liable to plaintiff under the theory of respondeat superior, as a matter of law. Defendants motion for partial summary judgment shall be granted and judgment shall be rendered in favor of defendants as to Count Three of plaintiff s complaint. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO www.cco.state.oh.us VICTOR GAUL : Plaintiff : v. CASE NO. 2003-09041 Judge Joseph T. Clark : JUDGMENT ENTRY GRAFTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, et al. : : Defendants : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon defendants motion for partial summary judgment. For the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently herewith, defendants motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED and judgment is hereby rendered in favor of defendants as to Count Three of plaintiff s complaint. Additionally, the court finds that Corrections Officer (CO) Brian Heathcote is not entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F). Therefore, the courts of common pleas have Case No. 2003-09041 -5- JUDGMENT ENTRY jurisdiction over any action against CO Heathcote arising out of the allegations of plaintiff s complaint. ________________________________ JOSEPH T. CLARK Judge Entry cc: Robert J. Mann 800 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43205 Attorney for Plaintiff Velda K. Hofacker Carr Assistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 Attorney for Defendants LP/cmd Filed August 12, 2005 To S.C. reporter August 29, 2005

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.