From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schaffer v. Board

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jul 13, 1960
171 Ohio St. 228 (Ohio 1960)

Summary

stating that a county is “not a body corporate but rather a subordinate political subdivision,” and “ county is purely a political subdivision, an agency or instrumentality of the state”

Summary of this case from Smith v. Grady

Opinion

No. 36395

Decided July 13, 1960.

Negligence — County or its agencies immune from suit, when — No statutory authorization therefor.

In the absence of statutory authorization therefor, a county or its agencies are immune from suit for negligence.

CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

This action arose by plaintiff's filing of a petition in the Court of Common Pleas to recover damages for injuries sustained by her when a step and handrail on the stairway leading to her apartment gave way and she was precipitated to the ground.

According to the allegations of the petition, the building, in which the apartment was located, was owned by the Board of Trustees of the Franklin County Veterans Memorial and had been acquired by it as part of the site for the erection of the memorial building.

Plaintiff joined in her action, in addition to the board of trustees, its members and secretary, two contracting firms which were engaged in the removal of buildings on the site.

The Court of Common Pleas sustained a motion of defendants for judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment accordingly.

Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, such court affirmed that part of the judgment of the trial court in favor of the contractors but reversed that part of such judgment rendered on the pleadings in favor of the board of trustees and remanded the cause to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings according to law.

The Court of Appeals determined that its judgment is in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County in the case of Tinsley v. City of Cincinnati, No. 8302, and certified the record of the cause to this court for review.

Mr. Charles V. Schwenker, for appellee.

Mr. Earl W. Allison, prosecuting attorney, Mr. George Ruble, Jr., and Mr. Arthur M. Sebastian, for appellants.


The single question raised by this appeal is whether a board of trustees of a veterans memorial appointed by county commissioners is liable in tort for damages resulting from injuries sustained by a tenant living in a building acquired by the board as part of the site for the memorial.

Although the traditional sovereign immunity from suit arose as a result of judicial decision, such immunity is now constitutionally recognized in the Ohio Constitution by Section 16 of Article I, which reads in part as follows:

"Suits may be brought against the state, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law."

By recognizing the necessity of a constitutional provision to enable the passage of laws for actions against the state, the framers of the Constitution clearly recognized that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is a part of the substantive laws of our state and made the abrogation of such immunity primarily a legislative function.

Although such provision is now in our Constitution, it is not self-executing but requires the passage of legislation to activate it. Wolf v. Ohio State University Hospital, 170 Ohio St. 49, 162 N.E.2d 475.

Therefore, in the absence of statutory authorization, the state and its instrumentalities are completely immune from suit.

This brings us to the question as to whether such immunity extends to a county.

The sovereign immunity of counties was early recognized in Board of Commrs. of Hamilton County v. Mighels, 7 Ohio St. 110, wherein the syllabus states:

"The board of commissioners of a county are not liable, in their quasi corporate capacity, either by statute or at common law, to an action for damages for injury resulting to a private party by their negligence in the discharge of their official functions."

Plaintiff urges that a county stands in the same position and is liable to the same extent as a municipal corporation. In this regard, plaintiff fails to recognize that a county is a subdivision of the state, organized for judicial and political purposes. It is not a legal person or a separate political entity. A municipal corporation, on the other hand, is a corporation invested with certain powers of a private or proprietary nature. These distinctions were well expressed by Judge Brinkerhoff in Board of Commrs. of Hamilton County v. Mighels, supra, 118, 119, which expressions were quoted as follows and approved by Turner, J., in State, ex rel. Ranz, v. City of Youngstown, 140 Ohio St. 477, 483, 45 N.E.2d 767:

"`* * * municipal corporations proper are called into existence, either at the direct solicitation or by the free consent of the people who compose them.

"`Counties are local subdivisions of a state, created by the sovereign power of the state, of its own sovereign will, without the particular solicitation, consent, or concurrent action of the people who inhabit them. The former organization is asked for, or at least assented to by the people it embraces; the latter is superimposed by a sovereign and paramount authority.

"`A municipal corporation proper is created mainly for the interest, advantage, and convenience of the locality and its people; a county organization is created almost exclusively with a view to the policy of the state at large, for purposes of political organization and civil administration, in matters of finance, of education, of provision for the poor, of military organization, of the means of travel and transport, and especially for the general administration of justice. With scarcely an exception, all the powers and functions of the county organization have a direct and exclusive reference to the general policy of the state, and are, in fact, but a branch of the general administration of that policy.'"

The General Assembly has clearly recognized the sovereign immunity of counties by enacting, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution, Section 305.12, Revised Code, imposing liability on a county for negligence in failing to keep roads or bridges in repair. To this extent the sovereign immunity of a county has been abrogated.

Judge Spear in Board of County Commrs. v. Gates, 83 Ohio St. 19, 30, 93 N.E. 255, clearly and succinctly stated the nature and the status of a county when he said:

"Another view would seem to be equally fatal to the claim of plaintiff in this case. We are dealing with a question of liability of a county, a claim to be made good, if at all, by taxation upon the property of the people at large. Now a county is not a body corporate but rather a subordinate political division, an instrumentality of government, clothed with such powers and such only as are given by statute, and liable to such extent and such only as the statutes prescribe. The board of commissioners acts in such matters as the construction of ditches in a political rather than a judicial capacity, and that body also in such action is clothed with such powers only as the statutes afford." See, also, State, ex rel. Godfrey, a Taxpayer, v. O'Brien, Treas., 95 Ohio St. 166, 115 N.E. 25, and State, ex rel. Ranz, v. City of Youngstown, supra.

A county is purely a political subdivision, an agency or instrumentality of the state and is clothed with the same sovereign immunity from suit.

Thus, in the absence of statutory authorization therefor, a county or its agencies are immune from suit for negligence.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals so far as it reverses the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas and remands the cause for further proceedings according to law is hereby reversed.

Judgment reversed in part.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, BELL and PECK, JJ., concur.

HERBERT, J., not participating.


Summaries of

Schaffer v. Board

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jul 13, 1960
171 Ohio St. 228 (Ohio 1960)

stating that a county is “not a body corporate but rather a subordinate political subdivision,” and “ county is purely a political subdivision, an agency or instrumentality of the state”

Summary of this case from Smith v. Grady

In Schaffer v. Board of Trustees (1960), 171 Ohio St. 228, 230, 12 O.O. 2d 343, 344, 168 N.E.2d 547, 549, the court said that "* * * a county is a subdivision of the state, organized for judicial and political purposes.

Summary of this case from Bd. of Retardation v. Professionals Guild

In Schaffer v. Board of Trustees of the Franklin County Veterans Memorial (1960), 171 Ohio St. 228, the Supreme Court held that a board of trustees of a veterans memorial appointed by the county commissioners is immune from suit because counties are immune as agencies or instrumentalities of the state clothed with the same sovereign immunity from suit.

Summary of this case from Bundy v. Five Rivers Metroparks

In Schaffer, the Supreme Court discussed R. C. 305.12, which waives the immunity of a county from liability for certain purposes but not others. See, also, Thacker v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ. (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 49.

Summary of this case from Frazier v. Alum Crest

In Schaffer v. Bd. of Trustees of the Franklin County Veterans Memorial (1960), 171 Ohio St. 228, the Supreme Court rejected an argument that counties should be liable in tort to the same extent as municipal corporations.

Summary of this case from Thacker v. Board
Case details for

Schaffer v. Board

Case Details

Full title:SCHAFFER, APPELLEE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FRANKLIN COUNTY VETERANS…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jul 13, 1960

Citations

171 Ohio St. 228 (Ohio 1960)
168 N.E.2d 547

Citing Cases

Thacker v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ

The Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University and The Ohio State University Hospitals filed a motion to…

Wierzbicki v. Carmichael

A board of county hospital trustees, operating under Section 339.02, Revised Code, is an agency of the…