Ohio Supreme Court hears arguments in Youngstown wrongful death lawsuit

The Supreme Court of Ohio heard arguments in a lawsuit filed against the City of Youngstown by the estate of a motorcyclist who died after he was struck by a falling tree.

Arguments were made by both parties in a lawsuit filed against the City of Youngstown by the estate of Thomas Morar, who was struck by a tree that had fallen on city property back in June of 2017. Morar died nearly two years following the accident resulting in a wrongful death lawsuit against the city.

The trial court ruled in favor of Morar's estate and the Mahoning County Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, but the city is still arguing that it should have been granted immunity in this case.

The question at hand is whether or not the city waited too long to claim immunity in the case because it did not include it as a defense in its initial response to the lawsuit.

Emily Anglewicz, an attorney representing the City of Youngstown said the city didn't need to include immunity as an initial defense because it was "obvious" from the face of the complaint that immunity applied in this case.

Anglewicz further argued that it is obvious that immunity applies in this case because the only allegation made from the plaintiff was that the city failed to maintain a tree on its property and no specific employee was named in the suit.

Anglewicz added that the delays in this case were circumstantial citing the case being delayed by the trial court, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, which began months after the suit was originally filed.

"For that reason, [the trial court's decision] would be an abuse of discretion. And if it were allowed to stand, it would create troubling precedent that delay alone is sufficient to deny leave to amend," Anglewicz said.

Meanwhile, Paul Giorgianni, an attorney representing Morar's estate, rebutted that even after the trial court struck the city's motion for summary judgment claiming the political subdivision immunity defense, the city never appealed that.

"So the trial court from the bench expressly told Youngstown's counsel, 'I'm not going to consider political subdivision immunity in this case,' put out an entry striking the motion for summary judgment, ... and then they didn't appeal," Giorgianni said.

Giorgianni added that it took another three months for the city to file a motion for leave to amend using the same defense the court already told them it wouldn't consider.

"So on top of all of this delay, even after the delay leading to the summary judgment motion, there's three months of additional delay before the first proposition of law is even raised. And now they're arguing ... an issue that they didn't appeal in the first place," Giorgianni said.

Anglewicz fired back saying the city did not need to appeal the trial court striking its motion noting that in that entry, the trial court said that defense was waived absent a motion for leave for amendment.

"The issue was not ripe until the motion for leave to amend was filed. That remedy was still available in the trial court," Anglewicz said.

The court took this matter under advisement. No ruling has been made yet.

RELATED COVERAGE:

Ohio Supreme Court to hear wrongful death suit filed by motorcyclist’s family

Youngstown appeal denied in wrongful death case

Court bashes City of Youngstown's 'extreme incompetence' in wrongful death case