## Facts

- Enghauser Manufacturing Company owned property served by a sewer system designed by Eriksson Engineering, Ltd. and constructed, operated, and maintained by the City of Cincinnati.
- A sewer failure allegedly caused sewage backup and flooding, damaging Enghauser’s premises and equipment.
- Enghauser sued the city and the engineering firm for negligent design, construction, and/or maintenance of the sewer system.
- A jury returned a verdict for Enghauser, awarding damages against both defendants.
- The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for the city on the ground of municipal immunity; the verdict against Eriksson remained.
- The court of appeals affirmed the JNOV for the city under then-existing Ohio common-law municipal immunity doctrine.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio should retain the judicially created doctrine of municipal immunity from tort liability.
2. If immunity is limited or abolished, what functions remain immune (legislative/judicial and certain discretionary policy decisions) versus what conduct is subject to ordinary negligence liability.
3. Whether alleged negligence connected to designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining a sewer system falls within any remaining immunity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
- The court overruled prior Ohio decisions supporting broad municipal immunity, including Dayton v. Pease, and abrogated municipal immunity subject to limited exceptions.
- Immunity was preserved only for acts or omissions involving legislative or judicial functions, and for executive/planning functions that entail basic policy decisions characterized by a high degree of official judgment or discretion.
- Once a municipality decides to undertake an activity, it may be held liable like a private actor for negligent performance of that activity by its employees and agents.
- Under this framework, sewer-related negligence allegations were treated as operational conduct potentially subject to liability, defeating the city’s categorical immunity defense that supported the JNOV.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal tort immunity in Ohio is generally abrogated; the default rule is municipal liability, with immunity as a limited exception.
- No tort action lies against a municipality for acts or omissions involving:
  - legislative functions,
  - judicial functions, or
  - executive/planning functions that constitute basic policy decisions involving a high degree of official judgment or discretion.
- Municipalities are subject to ordinary tort liability for negligence in operational implementation once they have chosen to engage in an activity (including municipal services), and courts should not rely on a broad governmental/proprietary label to confer blanket immunity.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected broad common-law municipal immunity and held that municipalities are generally answerable in tort for operational negligence, while retaining immunity for core legislative, judicial, and high-discretion policy-making functions; the city’s immunity-based JNOV was therefore reversed and the case remanded.


Enghauser Mfg. Co. v. Eriksson Eng’g Ltd., 6 Ohio St. 3d 31, 451 N.E.2d 228 (Ohio 1983)