## Facts

- Gerald Spears was a driver involved in a car accident in Akron, Ohio.
- Officer Kevin Kabellar responded to the accident scene and arrested Spears because Kabellar believed Spears had been driving while intoxicated.
- Spears alleged that during the arrest he was not physically combative, but Kabellar used excessive force by slamming Spears’s face into a police vehicle, grabbing Spears’s neck and arm, and applying handcuffs too tightly.
- Spears later sought medical care for a left-wrist injury and ultimately required surgery.
- Gerald Spears and his wife, Dottie Spears, filed a tort action against the Akron Police Department, the City of Akron, Officer Kabellar, and a John Doe officer.
- The complaint asserted assault and battery (based on excessive force), intentional infliction of emotional distress, reckless infliction of emotional distress, and Dottie Spears’s loss-of-consortium claim.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment based on political-subdivision and employee immunity under Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 2744.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Akron Police Department and dismissed Gerald Spears’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, but denied summary judgment to the City and Kabellar on the assault-and-battery and loss-of-consortium claims.
- The City and Kabellar appealed the denial of summary judgment on immunity grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the City of Akron was entitled to political-subdivision immunity under Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.02(A)(1) for claims arising from an officer’s alleged excessive force during an arrest, where no exception under § 2744.02(B) was shown.
2. Whether Officer Kabellar was entitled to employee immunity under Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03(A)(6), or whether disputed facts could support a finding that he acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.
3. Whether Dottie Spears’s loss-of-consortium claim could proceed against the City and/or Kabellar depending on the immunity rulings and survival of Gerald Spears’s underlying tort claim.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to the City of Akron, holding the City was immune from the assault-and-battery claim and the derivative loss-of-consortium claim because no statutory exception to immunity applied.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to Officer Kabellar, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Kabellar acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or wanton or reckless conduct during the arrest.
- The appellate court held that Dottie Spears’s loss-of-consortium claim could proceed against Kabellar to the extent Gerald Spears’s underlying assault-and-battery claim against Kabellar remained pending, but it was barred as to the City.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.02(A)(1), political subdivisions are generally immune from liability for damages allegedly caused by acts or omissions connected with governmental functions, including police services.
- The immunity analysis for a political subdivision proceeds under Ohio’s statutory framework: immunity applies unless a plaintiff establishes an exception under § 2744.02(B); if an exception applies, defenses under § 2744.03 may restore immunity.
- When a plaintiff does not identify or support an applicable exception under § 2744.02(B), a city is entitled to summary judgment on claims seeking damages for conduct occurring in the course of police services.
- Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03(A)(6), an employee of a political subdivision is generally immune from liability unless (among other grounds) the employee acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.
- Where the parties present conflicting evidence about the amount of force used and the surrounding circumstances, summary judgment on an officer’s § 2744.03(A)(6) immunity is improper because a factfinder must decide whether the conduct was wanton, reckless, malicious, or in bad faith.
- Loss-of-consortium claims are derivative; they survive only as to defendants who remain potentially liable on the underlying tort claim.

## Conclusion

The Ninth District Court of Appeals held that the City of Akron was entitled to political-subdivision immunity on the Spearses’ claims arising from Officer Kabellar’s arrest conduct because no statutory exception to immunity was established, but it also held that Kabellar was not entitled to summary judgment on employee immunity because disputed facts about the alleged excessive force could support a finding of malicious purpose, bad faith, or wanton or reckless conduct; Dottie Spears’s loss-of-consortium claim therefore continued only against Kabellar alongside Gerald Spears’s surviving assault-and-battery claim.


Spears v. Akron Police Department, 2010 WL 625822 (2010)