Background
Eric Eugene Cole called 911 after being shot and told dispatchers that he was in the middle of the street at 1407 S. Center Boulevard. Dispatcher Erin Reynolds initially handled the call but mistakenly understood the address and said she did not hear Cole say he was in the street. Dispatcher Mary Herge then took over, entered Cole’s location into the computer-aided dispatch system, and remained on the phone with him.
Officer Amanda Rosales responded with lights and siren. While searching for the address, a shooter, and people who might flag down officers, she struck Cole as he lay in the street. Cole died from blunt-force trauma. His estate sued Reynolds, Herge, and Rosales individually, and the trial court denied their summary-judgment motions asserting political-subdivision employee immunity.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that factual disputes precluded summary judgment for Reynolds on whether she acted recklessly. A factfinder could consider whether Reynolds failed to hear Cole’s plainly audible statement that he was in the street and whether she was responsible for ensuring that information reached responding officers through the dispatch system or police radio.
But the court held that Reynolds was not wanton as a matter of law. It also held that Herge and Rosales were entitled to statutory immunity because no reasonable factfinder could conclude that either acted recklessly or wantonly. Herge entered Cole’s street location into the dispatch system and stayed on the call; Rosales drove with lights and siren, within the speed limit, and did not know Cole was lying in the roadway. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A factual dispute over whether a dispatcher failed to hear and relay critical location information can support a recklessness claim at summary judgment.
- Conduct that may amount to negligence does not necessarily meet Ohio’s higher reckless-or-wanton threshold for defeating employee immunity.
- Dispatchers and officers remain individually immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) absent evidence of reckless or wanton conduct.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes negligent emergency-response errors from the conscious disregard or near-total absence of care required to overcome Ohio political-subdivision employee immunity. It leaves the estate’s recklessness theory against Reynolds for further litigation while removing Herge and Rosales from the case on immunity grounds.