 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dickman v. Elida Community Fire Co.3/29/2001
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court.
JUDGMENT: Judgment affirmed.
Plaintiff-appellant, Kathy Dickman, as Executrix of the Estate of John Dickman, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Elida Community Fire Company, Inc. (ECFC), by the Allen County Court of Common Pleas.
On March 13, 1998, decedent, John Dickman, collapsed at a basketball game at the Elida Field House in the Village of Elida, American Township. The ECFC responded to the emergency call. In this negligence and wrongful death action, appellant sought recovery from ECFC for negligence in treating the decedent.
The ECFC filed a motion for summary judgment. On November 16, 2000, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed appellant's action against ECFC. Appellant appeals from this judgment and raises two assignments of error.
For her first assignment of error, appellant asserts: The trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Appellant contends that ECFC has no immunity based on R.C. 4765.49(B) because its contract does not specifically provide for the deliverance of emergency medical services while this term is specifically defined in R.C. 4765.01(G).
R.C. 4765.49(B) provides that " political subdivision * and any officer or employee of a * private organization operating under contract * that provides emergency medical services * is not liable in damages in a civil action for * death * arising out of any actions taken by a * EMT-basic EMT-I * unless the services are provided in a manner that constitutes willful or wanton misconduct."
Pursuant to paragraph 2B of the Fire Contract with the Board of Township Trustees of American Township, ECFC was to "promptly dispatch rescue apparatus and personnel to the scene of any emergency within said township and county." We find that a reasonable interpretation of this contract language is that R.C. 4765.49(B) had been complied with. Therefore, the trial court properly rendered summary judgment as no triable issue of fact remains with respect to whether ECFC is immune from civil liability to the action pursuant to R.C. 4765.49(B). Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
For her second assignment of error, appellant asserts:
The trial court erred in not finding that R.C. 4765.49(B) is unconstitutional.
Appellant contends that R.C. 4765.49(B) is unconstitutional because it violates both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Ohio Constitution. As to the due process challenge, appellant asserts that, because fundamental constitutional rights of access to the courts and to a jury trial have been affected, R.C. 4765.49(B) is subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review. As a result, appellant argues that there is no compelling governmental interest which would justify granting a private corporation civil immunity for its negligent conduct while delivering emergency medical services.
"Under the strict scrutiny standard for reviewing legislation which restricts the exercise of fundamental rights, a statute will be considered unconstitutional unless it is shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest." Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 415, 423. The right to sue a political subdivision for the negligence of its employees is not a fundamental right. Fabrey v. McDonald Police Dept. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 351, 353. We also note that a political subdivision is immune for performing a governmental function such as the provision of emergency medical, ambulance, and rescue services. R.C. 27
Page 1 2 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|