Opinion
Case No. 2019-00740AD
01-23-2020
KENNETH J MITCHELL Plaintiff v. OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL Defendant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Kenneth J. Mitchell ("plaintiff") filed this claim against the Ohio State Highway Patrol ("OSHP"), to recover damages which occurred when he was stopped and subsequently arrested. Plaintiff alleges that he was pulled over for a traffic violation on February 17, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that during the traffic stop, the arresting officer damaged his driver side passenger door with his weapon. Plaintiff requests $925.98 in damages. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee.
{¶2} Plaintiff attached a copy of an "Impaired Driver Report" to his complaint form. The report was written by the arresting officer who allegedly damaged plaintiff's vehicle. The report states the following:
"I was on routine patrol in the Township of Harrison, Montgomery County, Ohio. I was operating a clearly marked patrol car wearing the uniform of the day. At approximately 0050, I was stationary at a red light at the intersection of SR 48 and Castlewood Ave. I noticed a black Cadillac approach me from behind in the left lane. The vehicle then committed a marked lanes violation coming toward my patrol car. The vehicle then came to a stop in the left lane just behind my patrol car. The vehicle was stopped approximately 15 feet before the stop bar (instead of being stopped beside me at the stop bar). When the light turned green I didn't go to see if the vehicle would pass me, it stayed stopped in the left lane.
After I moved my patrol car the SUV then got behind my patrol car. I turned into a parking lot of a thrift store at SR 48 and Nottingham Rd and the violator vehicle pulled into the same parking lot behind me. I was then able to get behind the vehicle and activated my overhead lights initiating a traffic stop. The vehicle then came to a stop. I approached the vehicle on the left (driver) side. I engaged in verbal conversation with the driver and asked him for his driver's license and proof of car insurance. The driver then handed me his driver's license identifying him as Kenneth J. Mitchell (defendant). I explained to the defendant why I pulled him over and asked where he was coming from. The defendant stated that he and his passengers were coming from Sporty's (bar). I could smell the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle and the defendant had bloodshot glassy eyes, slow and slurred speech, a flush look of the face and slow fumbling fingers (all indicators of alcohol impairment). I asked the defendant how much alcohol he had to drink and he stated he had nothing to drink. I then told the defendant that I was going to have him exit the vehicle for field sobriety tests to see if he was okay to drive. When I told the defendant to exit the vehicle, he stated 'I don't want to step out because I don't feel comfortable'. I then explained to the defendant that I needed him to exit to perform field sobriety tests in which he demanded to have my supervisor (I didn't call for one since the closest sergeant was in Xenia). I then asked the defendant why he didn't feel comfortable with exiting the vehicle and he stated, 'because I don't feel comfortable with who you are. I don't feel comfortable because I'm an African American and you're a white man.' I then told the defendant that I needed him to exit the vehicle and that it wasn't an option at that point. I then opened the defendant door and grabbed his left forearm, telling him
again that he needs to exit the vehicle. While holding the defendant's arm I told him to exit the vehicle three more times before pulling him out of the vehicle by his left arm (holding pressure on his wrist and elbow). The defendant was passive resistant while I was pulling him out of the vehicle. I brought the defendant to the front of my patrol car was able to place him in hand cuffs without injury.
"***
"I then went back to the vehicle to notify the passengers of what had happened and why. While talking to the passengers, I noticed damage to the left rear door of the vehicle where my holster for my duty weapon and handcuff key had scratched and dented the door in the process of extracting the defendant from the vehicle. The damage was photographed and I notified the defendant of the damage."
{¶3} Defendant submitted an Investigation Report denying liability in this matter. According to defendant, plaintiff's vehicle was damaged after defendant's trooper made a lawful traffic stop and subsequent arrest. Defendant also submitted the report prepared by the arresting trooper which states the same as the report plaintiff submitted. Defendant argues that it cannot be held liable for the damage to plaintiff's vehicle because the trooper was not negligent in his arrest of plaintiff. Defendant does not dispute that the trooper caused the damage to plaintiff's vehicle when he arrested plaintiff.
{¶4} Plaintiff submitted a response to defendant's investigation report. Plaintiff again requests that he be reimbursed for the damage caused to his vehicle.
{¶5} In order to prevail, on a claim of negligence, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached that duty, and that defendant's breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). "Whether a duty is breached and whether the breach proximately caused an injury are normally questions of fact, to be decided . . . by the court . . ." Pacher v. Invisible Fence of Dayton, 154 Ohio App.3d 744, 2003-Ohio-5333, 798 N.E.2d 1121, ¶ 41 (2nd Dist.), citing Miller v. Paulson, 97 Ohio App.3d 217, 221, 646 N.E.2d 521 (10th Dist. 1994); Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989). Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered a loss and that this loss was proximately caused by defendant's negligence. Barnum v. Ohio State University, 76-0368-AD (1977). "The duty owed by the Highway Patrol to those drivers and passengers encountered within the scope of the Highway Patrol's official duties is one of ordinary care, bearing in mind that the patrol must enforce the law so as to maximize the safety of all the motoring public." Legg v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 66 Ohio Misc.2d 118, 122, 643 N.E.2d 606 (Ct. of Cl. 1993).
{¶6} Upon review of the evidence, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to prove defendant was negligent in causing the damage to his vehicle. It is undisputed that plaintiff was stopped by defendant after committing a traffic violation. It is also undisputed that plaintiff refused to exit his vehicle after being ordered multiple times by the arresting trooper. It is also undisputed that plaintiff had to be forcibly removed from his vehicle after he refused to exit his vehicle. Plaintiff does state in his complaint that the narrative provide by the arresting trooper is "totally different from the actual video;" however, other than his own statement, plaintiff provides no details regarding this discrepancy. The court finds that defendant had the privilege to request that plaintiff exit his vehicle based upon the suspicion of an OVI, and plaintiff refused to do so. Plaintiff's refusal to comply with the trooper's orders resulted in him being forcibly removed from his vehicle and placed under arrest. During the removal, plaintiff's vehicle received damage. The court finds that the actions of defendant were appropriate as plaintiff refused to comply with a direct order given by a state highway patrol trooper. Plaintiff has not offered any evidence other than his own statements that the trooper's conduct during the stop and subsequent arrest were negligent. Accordingly, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. KENNETH J MITCHELL Plaintiff
v. OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL Defendant Case No. 2019-00740AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶7} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant. Court costs shall be absorbed by the court.
/s/_________
DANIEL R. BORCHERT
Deputy Clerk Filed 1/23/20
Sent to S.C. reporter 3/3/20