Background
On June 17, 2023, Parma Heights police officers responded to a welfare check at the apartment of Gwen Laverne Guerrero after a resident reported concerns about a possible head injury. Officers found Guerrero confused, bruised, and unstable on her feet. They contacted paramedics from the Parma Heights Fire Department for emergency medical care. When paramedics Hanzel and Lane arrived, they examined Guerrero, found her unresponsive and confused, and advised her to go to the hospital due to her condition and head injury. Guerrero refused treatment.
After both officers and paramedics left the apartment, Guerrero came out of her residence and approached the ambulance, pounding on its side to get the paramedics’ attention. The ambulance, driven by Hanzel, “rapidly drove off,” causing Guerrero to fall and be run over by the vehicle. She died instantly. Jessica Formoso, Guerrero’s daughter, sued the City of Parma Heights, both departments, and individual officers and paramedics for wrongful death and damages.
The defendants moved to dismiss under Ohio’s Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, claiming immunity under R.C. Ch. 2744. The trial court denied the motion. The defendants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss in part and reversed in part. The court held that the Parma Heights Fire and Police Departments are not separate suable entities—they are sub-units of the City—and therefore claims against them must be dismissed. Claims against individual police officers Percun and Smith were also dismissed, as the complaint’s allegations did not rise to the level of wanton or reckless conduct needed to overcome their individual immunity.
However, the court allowed the negligence claim against the City for operation of the ambulance to proceed. Although political subdivisions generally enjoy immunity, an exception exists for negligent operation of motor vehicles. The court rejected the argument that EMS immunity applies simply because the initial call was for emergency medical care. The court found that Formoso adequately alleged facts showing potential negligence: paramedics knew Guerrero was confused and unstable on her feet, yet rapidly drove away after she approached the ambulance and pounded on its side, causing her to fall and be struck. This could constitute negligence despite EMS’s emergency status.
The court similarly allowed claims against individual paramedics Hanzel and Lane to proceed. While the officers’ conduct in contacting EMS and kicking down the door did not constitute wanton or reckless conduct, the paramedics’ decision to rapidly drive off while an unbalanced, unstable woman they knew to be confused stood near a running motor vehicle could support a finding of wanton or reckless behavior—piercing their individual immunity.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio’s motor-vehicle exception to government immunity applies even when EMS personnel are completing an emergency call, but allegations of negligent operation may still survive dismissal if adequately pled.
- No exception exists to immunity for government employees’ failure to provide emergency care after a patient refuses treatment—absent specific statutory exceptions, such decisions are protected.
- Individual government employees may face liability when allegations plausibly demonstrate wanton or reckless conduct, even when their employer enjoys immunity for the same acts.
- Fire and Police Departments, when not incorporated as separate entities, cannot be sued as defendants; claims must be redirected to the governmental unit they serve.
Why It Matters
This decision carves out meaningful exposure for municipalities and individual emergency personnel in high-stakes situations where EMS or police response results in injury despite emergency-response status. While Ohio law provides broad immunity for governmental decisions, the court made clear that immunity does not shield against allegations of negligent *operation* of vehicles, particularly where personnel had knowledge of a vulnerable person’s condition. The distinction between failing to provide refused care (immune) and operating a vehicle negligently despite knowing of a vulnerable person’s presence (not necessarily immune) creates a viable pathway for wrongful-death claims in tragic circumstances where emergency responders’ actions directly caused harm.
The decision also clarifies that individual EMS personnel may bear personal liability for wanton or reckless conduct that their employer enjoys immunity from defending—a potentially significant exposure that may affect how emergency services train personnel on patient safety during vehicle operations.