Case: Plush v. Cincinnati

On August 12, 2019, the parents of a deceased sixteen-year-old boy filed a complaint against the City of Cincinnati and individual employees of the Emergency Communications Center in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas for Hamilton County. The plaintiffs alleged they suffered permanent damages and brought several claims, including: (1) failure to protect in violation of Ohio Constitution Article I sections 1 and 16, (2) wrongful death, (3) breach of duty, (4) failure to supervise 9-1-1 employees, (5) breach of duty to protect by police officers, (6) failure to supervise police officers, (7) breach of duty by the city of Cincinnati, (8) liability under R.C. § 128.32, (9) intentional infliction of serious emotional distress, and (10) loss of consortium. The boy's parents were represented by private counsel. 

The sixteen-year-old boy died after being trapped in his minivan after the backseat unexpectedly folded and pinned him against the back door. The plaintiffs sued the city of Cincinnati, the city manager, the employees who took the 911 calls, and the police officers who responded to the 911 calls. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had violated state law in recklessly and negligently causing the wrongful death of their son. They called attention to individual actions from the call takers and police officers as well as the city's Emergency Call Center, which had both personnel and technology issues in recent years. The plaintiffs requested compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief for the city to reform its emergency call system.

On the same day as the complaint, the plaintiffs also moved for a temporary restraining order. The case was assigned to Judge Robert P. Ruehlman.

Seeking both political subdivision and individual immunity, the defendants moved to dismiss the case on October 8, 2019. On January 22, 2020, the trial court denied the motion. Regarding political subdivision immunity, it held that the defendants had not conclusively shown that the immunity was apparent on the face of the complaint. For individual immunity, the court held that city employees acting outside the scope of official responsibilities was an exception to immunity, and that the complaint alleged facts to show that it was possible the city employees had done so. 2020 WL 9439519.

The next day, the defendants appealed to the Ohio First District Court of Appeals. On December 16, 2020, the appeals court remanded the case, affirming in part and denying in part the trial court's decision. The appeals court held that political subdivision immunity did apply, and that an exception would have been appropriate for the creation of a 911 system but not for improvements to the system. It also held that the city employees were immune in their official capacities because the plaintiffs' son died on private property, in the parking lot of his private school. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's decision that the city employees were not immune in their individual capacities because the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged at least recklessness. 164 N.E.3d 1056.

On April 9, 2021, the parties agreed on a settlement. The defendants were to pay $6 million in damages and attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs. In addition, the defendants agreed to spend $250,000 to hire outside experts to review the city's operations for handling 911 calls. These experts would identify areas for improvement and help set goals for the city. The parties agreed that these goals should center around implementing industry best practices and standards, quality assurance for calls and dispatching, steps to achieve accreditation, staff training and retention, and improving responses to calls that are labeled as "unknown trouble." The goals would be set within thirty days of the agreement, and the team of experts would issue a public report after six months. The city agreed to implement the recommendations from the team of experts and publish progress reports every six months. The settlement agreement would last five years.

With the settlement agreement in place, the court dismissed the case with prejudice on June 22, 2021. The terms of the settlement agreement are set to expire in 2026.