Hit by a Police Cruiser in Ohio? What McConnell v. Dudley Means for Your Claim

Published December 3, 2019 · Ohio Supreme Court

Renee McConnell was driving to work on a September morning in 2013 when a police cruiser came through a red light and hit her car. Her Toyota struck a utility pole and landed on its roof. She was seriously injured, and her husband and four daughters joined her lawsuit.

On November 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of Ohio decided an important part of that lawsuit in McConnell v. Dudley, 2019-Ohio-4740. The ruling narrows the ways a person hit by a police vehicle can hold the government responsible. It does not close the door. As a former Dayton police officer and sergeant, I want to explain what changed, what remains, and why the evidence from the first days after a cruiser crash now matters more than ever.

The crash

A Coitsville Township officer in Mahoning County was investigating a report of a stolen vehicle. Suspects drove off, and the officer lost sight of them. He then saw a car he believed was theirs weaving through traffic and pursued it, reaching speeds as high as 76 miles per hour. As he approached an intersection, he began radioing his position. He knew there was a traffic light there, but he did not notice that it was red, and a house and a tree blocked his view to the right. He entered the intersection at about 35 miles per hour and struck McConnell's car.

The McConnells sued the officer and the township. They alleged that the officer's driving was negligent, willful, or wanton, and that the township was itself at fault in how it hired the officer, trained him for pursuits, and set its pursuit policies.

How Ohio's immunity statute works for police vehicles

Cities, counties, and townships are "political subdivisions" under R.C. Chapter 2744, and they start out immune from most lawsuits. The Supreme Court applies a three-step test: the government is generally immune; the injured person must fit the claim into one of the statute's exceptions; and the government can then try to restore its immunity with certain defenses.

The exception that matters in vehicle crashes is R.C. 2744.02(B)(1). It makes a political subdivision liable for injuries "caused by the negligent operation of any motor vehicle by their employees" acting within the scope of their jobs.

For police officers, there is a major qualification. Under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a), it is a full defense if the officer was "responding to an emergency call" and the driving "did not constitute willful or wanton misconduct." In plain English: if the officer was on an emergency run, ordinary carelessness is not enough. The injured person must show the driving was willful or wanton, meaning the officer failed to use any care at all in circumstances where harm was highly likely. In the McConnell case, it was undisputed on appeal that the officer was responding to an emergency call.

What the Court decided

The trial court and the Seventh District Court of Appeals allowed the claim against the township for negligent hiring, training, and supervision to go forward. The Supreme Court reversed.

The Court held that the (B)(1) exception is about driving. It applies to an employee's negligence in operating the vehicle, not to the government's decisions about who to hire or how to train. As the majority put it, "political subdivisions do not drive." Because no other exception in R.C. 2744.02(B) covers negligent hiring, training, or supervision, the township was entitled to summary judgment on that count.

The decision drew interest from local governments across the state, including Dayton-area cities like Xenia and Oakwood, which joined friend-of-the-court briefs asking the Court to rule as it did.

What the Court did not decide

This is the most important part for anyone hurt by a police vehicle. The Court did not decide whether the officer's driving was willful or wanton. The trial court had found genuine factual disputes on that question, and the case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. How that claim will turn out is not yet known.

Justice Stewart wrote a short concurring opinion that matters a great deal in practice. She agreed that training failures are not a separate basis for suing the township, but noted that evidence of supervisory negligence "may still have some bearing" on whether the officer's driving was negligent or, in an emergency, willful and wanton. In other words, a department's pursuit policies and training records can still be relevant evidence about the officer's conduct, even though they are not a freestanding claim.

Why this makes the evidence even more important

After McConnell, a cruiser-crash case against a city, county, or township generally rises or falls on one question: what did the officer do behind the wheel? If the officer was on an emergency call, the answer has to show willful or wanton driving. That proof comes from specific, perishable evidence:

• Dash-camera and body-camera video from the cruiser and any other units involved
• Radio traffic and dispatch recordings and logs, which show what the officer was told, what the officer reported, and when
• Vehicle data, including the cruiser's speed, braking, and whether lights and siren were activated, and when
• The department's pursuit policy, and whether the officer followed it
• Crash reconstruction, including sight lines at the intersection, signal timing, and speed
• Independent witnesses who saw whether the lights and siren were on

Much of this evidence is held by the government agency itself and is subject to retention schedules. A prompt preservation demand and public-records request are often the first steps we take.

The contrast with a case where immunity fell away

Earlier this year I wrote about the East Cleveland cruiser-crash verdict in Hunt, where a jury found an officer's high-speed driving willful, wanton, or reckless and awarded more than $7.7 million in compensatory damages, a judgment the court of appeals upheld. Hunt shows what proving the officer's own conduct can achieve. McConnell confirms that this is now the central path.

Your own insurance may also help

Claims against government drivers involve immunity defenses that ordinary crash claims do not. In some cases, your own uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage can play a role, a subject I discussed in an earlier post on police-cruiser crashes and UM coverage. Review your policy and talk with a lawyer before assuming there is no recovery.

What this means for you

If you were hit by a police cruiser, fire truck, or other government vehicle, McConnell means you should not expect to win by attacking the department's hiring or training alone. The focus will be the driver's conduct, and if the officer was on an emergency call, the standard is willful or wanton misconduct. That is a demanding standard, but it is met in real cases when the evidence is gathered quickly and analyzed carefully. Our claims against the government practice handles these cases, and our car accident page explains the rest of the claims process.