Background
On May 7, 2023, a physical altercation occurred at the Franklin County Juvenile Intervention Center between two juvenile residents, one of whom was Damarion Allen. During the fight, Allen struck his head on the floor. Two staff members—Latashia D. Lewis, a juvenile intervention specialist, and Talia Sumney, a shift supervisor—responded to the incident. After separating the juveniles, staff moved Allen to his room, despite his protests that he could not move and repeated references to pain in his neck. Allen subsequently became paralyzed from the neck down.
In August 2023, Allen and his mother, Mary Washington, sued Lewis and Sumney for reckless, willful, or wanton breach of duty and loss of consortium. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting statutory immunity under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.03(A)(6) as public employees. The trial court denied both motions in April 2025. Lewis and Sumney appealed the denials as final orders under R.C. § 2744.02(C), which permits appeal of orders denying immunity.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment and rejection of the defendants’ immunity defense. Under R.C. § 2744.03(A)(6)(b), public employees lose immunity if they act “with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.” The appellate court found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether both defendants acted recklessly.
As to Sumney: Although she did not witness the initial altercation, evidence showed she became aware shortly after responding to the scene that Allen was physically unable to move himself from the floor. Despite first-aid training requiring immobilization of suspected head, neck, or spine injuries, Sumney ordered staff to drag Allen to his room. Video recordings captured Allen twice complaining about his neck while positioned outside his room, yet Sumney ordered his immediate placement inside “no matter what it takes” and authorized use of force. The court found a reasonable factfinder could conclude Sumney “perversely disregarded a known risk of further injuring Allen.”
As to Lewis: Security video showed Lewis was positioned to personally witness Allen striking his head during the altercation. Immediately afterward, Lewis turned Allen over and dragged him, despite acknowledging first-aid training that prohibited moving suspected spine injury victims. Allen told Lewis he could not comply with orders to move. The combination of Lewis witnessing the head strike, observing Allen’s immobility, and handling him roughly despite training created a genuine factual dispute about recklessness.
Key Takeaways
- Governmental immunity under Ohio law can be defeated at the summary judgment stage when evidence reasonably supports a finding of reckless conduct by public employees.
- Recklessness requires conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk of harm; ignoring an injury victim’s complaints and training on immobilization protocols can support such a finding.
- Video evidence corroborating or contradicting employee testimony can create genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment, even when defendants offer innocent explanations for their conduct.
- Courts reviewing summary judgment denials of immunity do so de novo, meaning trial court errors on burden-of-proof allocation are harmless when the appellate court reaches the correct conclusion independently.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Ohio public employees, including those in juvenile detention facilities, cannot automatically shield themselves from liability through statutory immunity when evidence suggests reckless conduct. The court’s emphasis on the defendants’ awareness of Allen’s condition—combined with their failure to follow first-aid training and continued rough handling—creates a pathway for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in cases involving institutional neglect or mishandling of vulnerable populations.
For juvenile detention facilities and similar institutions, the ruling underscores the importance of staff training compliance and the risks of ignoring apparent injury complaints or immobility in detainees. The decision also illustrates that video evidence from facility cameras can be critical in establishing factual disputes that survive summary judgment, particularly when it contradicts employees’ characterizations of their own conduct or observations.