Background
Springfield Township Police Officer Timothy Unwin responded around midnight to an officer-needs-assistance call involving a fellow officer in a physical altercation during a traffic stop. Although another responding officer received an update that the individuals involved were in custody, Unwin drove between 78.6 and 84.3 miles per hour through a construction zone with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. While attempting to pass another motorist, he lost control of his cruiser, struck a median, and landed on William Dunson’s car. Both men died.
William Dunson’s wife, Erica Dunson, acting as administrator of his estate, sued Springfield Township, Unwin’s estate, and then-Chief of Police Rick Bley for negligence, wrongful death, and survivorship. The defendants sought summary judgment under Ohio’s political-subdivision immunity statute, R.C. Chapter 2744. The trial court denied their motion, and the defendants appealed the immunity rulings.
The Court’s Holding
The First District affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Springfield Township and Unwin’s estate on immunity. It held that Unwin was responding to an “emergency call” because he remained professionally obligated to report to the scene even if the call had been downgraded or canceled. But a genuine factual dispute remained over whether his driving constituted wanton misconduct: a reasonable factfinder could conclude that traveling more than 50 miles per hour above the limit at night through a construction zone showed a failure to exercise care under circumstances presenting a great probability of harm. Activating lights and sirens did not establish sufficient care as a matter of law.
The court reversed the denial of summary judgment to Chief Bley on claims against him in his individual capacity. Dunson relied on one earlier incident in which Unwin attempted a left turn from the right lane and collided with another vehicle, but the court held that this incident did not establish a known or obvious risk that Unwin would later drive at extreme speed through a nighttime construction zone. Bley’s failure to impose formal discipline therefore could not rise to recklessness on this record. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these immunity rulings.
Key Takeaways
- An officer may be responding to an “emergency call” under Ohio law whenever professional duty requires a response, even if the underlying situation has been downgraded or brought under control.
- Use of emergency lights and sirens does not automatically defeat a claim of wanton driving; the court must assess those precautions alongside speed, road conditions, and the surrounding circumstances.
- Individual-capacity liability must rest on the conduct of the particular employee, and one prior driving incident did not show that Chief Bley consciously disregarded a known or obvious risk of the fatal conduct alleged here.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Ohio political subdivisions cannot obtain summary judgment on emergency-vehicle immunity merely by showing that an officer was answering a duty-related call and activated lights and sirens. When the overall manner of driving could support a finding of wanton misconduct, immunity remains a fact-dependent issue for trial.
At the same time, supervisory officials are not individually exposed based solely on an employee’s conduct. A plaintiff seeking to overcome a supervisor’s statutory immunity must present evidence that the supervisor’s own acts or omissions satisfy an exception such as recklessness.