Hit by a Police Cruiser? An Ohio City Learned It Cannot Ignore an $8 Million Verdict

Published March 2, 2023 · Ohio Supreme Court

Winning a verdict against a city is hard. Collecting it should not be. Charles Hunt and Marilyn Conard won their case against East Cleveland in 2017 after a police cruiser racing to join a chase slammed into their car, and the city fought them through every level of appeal, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. When the appeals ran out, the city simply did not pay.

On February 15, 2023, a unanimous Supreme Court of Ohio ordered it to. State ex rel. Hunt v. East Cleveland, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-407, is short, but it answers a question every person hurt by a government vehicle eventually asks: if I win, will the city actually pay?

The crash and the verdict

On October 5, 2008, an East Cleveland officer responded to another officer's pursuit of a stolen motorcycle. Driving at high speed, his cruiser collided with the car Hunt was driving, with Conard as his passenger. Both were seriously injured.

They sued the officer and the city. In 2017, a jury found that their injuries were caused by the negligence of the officer and the city, and also found that the officer "acted with a conscious disregard" for their rights and safety. The jury awarded $7,710,180 in compensatory damages: $6,119,738 to Hunt and $1,590,442 to Conard. It awarded another $1 million in punitive damages against the officer personally. The trial court then added roughly $2.47 million in prejudgment interest, the interest that accrues before judgment when a court finds it warranted.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed in 2019, which we covered in our post on the $7.7 million East Cleveland cruiser-crash verdict. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear the city's appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied review. Then nothing happened. Ms. Conard died after the appeals court ruled, and her estate carried on the fight.

Why the families had to go back to court

You might expect that a person holding a final judgment can simply collect it. Against a private defendant, that is generally true: a judgment creditor can garnish bank accounts or seize property. Cities are different.

R.C. 2744.06(A) says that a political subdivision's property and money are not subject to execution, garnishment, or attachment to satisfy an injury judgment. Instead, the statute says those judgments "shall be paid" from funds appropriated for that purpose, or, if there is not enough money appropriated, the city's fiscal officer must certify the unpaid judgment for the next year's budget. Bonds or installment payments are also permitted.

So when East Cleveland refused to pay, the families could not send a sheriff to its bank. They filed an original action in the Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus, which is a court order directing a government official or body to perform a duty the law requires.

What the Supreme Court held

The Court granted the writ. Because the statute uses the word "shall," the city's duty to pay is mandatory, and the families had no other adequate way to collect. The Court ordered East Cleveland to pay the full judgment, the prejudgment interest, and statutory post-judgment interest running from April 2017 until the day the judgment is paid, or, if it lacks the money now, to take the budgeting steps R.C. 2744.06(A) requires.

The city tried to relitigate the case. It argued that it was immune, that the jury never really found the city negligent, that damages should have been apportioned between it and the officer, and that its fiscal problems excused prejudgment interest. The Court called these arguments improper collateral attacks on a judgment that had already been affirmed. The jury's interrogatory found both "Defendants" negligent, the absence of apportionment was consistent with joint and several liability, and the city had forfeited its interest argument by not appealing it.

The law that made the city liable in the first place

The underlying liability came from R.C. 2744.02(B)(1), one of the main exceptions to government immunity. Cities, counties, and other political subdivisions are liable for injuries caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by their employees acting within the scope of their employment.

There is an important defense. Under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a), when a police officer is responding to an emergency call, the city is not liable unless the officer's driving was "willful or wanton misconduct," which is more than ordinary carelessness. That defense was litigated in the Hunt case. The jury's finding that the officer acted with conscious disregard for others' safety is what carried the families past it, and the Supreme Court confirmed that the city is liable under (B)(1)(a) for an officer's willful and wanton misconduct while driving to an emergency call.

Two other points are worth knowing. Punitive damages cannot be awarded against a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.05(A), which is why the $1 million punitive award ran only against the officer and was not part of this mandamus case. And interest matters: years of delay added millions in pre- and post-judgment interest that the city now owes.

What this means for you

If you were hit by a police cruiser, fire truck, ambulance, city bus, or other government vehicle in the Dayton area, the Hunt decision is good news in two ways. First, it confirms that cities are liable for their employees' crashes, including emergency-run crashes when the driving crosses into willful or wanton misconduct. Second, it shows that a judgment against a city is enforceable; a city that stonewalls can be ordered by the Supreme Court to pay, with interest.

These cases are built on evidence that disappears quickly: cruiser dash-camera and body-camera video, dispatch recordings, the pursuit policy, GPS and speed data, and witness accounts of lights and sirens. Our guide chapter on what your case is worth explains how damages are built, and our page on claims against the government in Ohio covers the immunity rules and deadlines.

You may also have a claim under your own policy. A new law taking effect March 14, 2023, addresses uninsured-motorist coverage when an immune government driver causes a crash; we explained it in our post on S.B. 56. For crashes of every kind, see our Dayton car accident lawyer page.