Albritton v. Neighborhood Centers Ass'n for Child Development
12 Ohio St. 3d 210 (1984)
Rule of Law:
The common law doctrine of charitable immunity is abolished. A charitable organization is subject to liability in tort to the same extent as any other individual or corporation.
Facts:
- Albritton sustained an injury for which she alleged the Neighborhood Centers Association (NCA) was legally responsible.
- NCA is a private, nonprofit entity incorporated and established as a tax-exempt charitable institution.
- NCA receives funds from governmental sources under a contract to provide services.
- As a condition of its government contract, NCA is required to comply with applicable laws and regulations.
- There was no evidence presented that the government supervised the day-to-day operations of NCA.
Procedural Posture:
- Albritton filed a tort lawsuit against Neighborhood Centers Association (NCA) in the trial court.
- NCA filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was protected from liability by the doctrine of charitable immunity.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of NCA.
- Albritton, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of NCA.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio then accepted the case for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common law doctrine of charitable immunity shield a charitable organization from liability for its tortious conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - William B. Brown, J.
No. The common law doctrine of charitable immunity does not shield a charitable organization from tort liability. This doctrine is abolished as it is no longer grounded in valid, rational reasons. The court reasoned that the doctrine was originally adopted in the U.S. based on overruled English precedent and has since been eroded by numerous exceptions, such as for hospitals, non-beneficiaries, and paying patrons. Public policy no longer supports immunity, as an injury is no less damaging when inflicted by a charity, and forcing the victim to bear the cost is akin to a coerced donation. The court dismissed fears of financial ruin for charities as speculative, pointing to the majority of states that have abolished the doctrine without such consequences. As a judicially created doctrine, the court has the duty to abolish it when it no longer aligns with good morals and sound law.
Dissenting - Locher, J.
Yes. The doctrine of charitable immunity should be retained in a modified form rather than completely abolished. The dissent argues that the majority made a sweeping, overbroad change based on the narrow facts of a government-funded charity, abandoning the court's prior, more cautious case-by-case approach. The existing exceptions did not devour the rule but rather showed the court's thoughtful adaptation of the doctrine over time. The dissent warns that this decision will harm small, financially precarious charities that minister to the needy by forcing them to pay for liability insurance they cannot afford, thereby diminishing volunteerism and vital services. The majority, in effect, engaged in judicial legislation without the empirical data and broad input that a legislative body would consider.
Dissenting - Holmes, J.
Yes. The doctrine of charitable immunity should be retained, and the majority's decision to abolish it is unrealistic. Concurring with Justice Locher, this dissent emphasizes that there is a growing need for charitable services, and the added cost of liability insurance could be insurmountable for many small organizations that rely on donations. Applying the same tort liability standard to all charities—from large, wealthy foundations to small, neighborhood operations—is unreasonable. The dissent concludes that such a significant public policy change, which requires consideration of empirical data and its broad societal impact, is a matter best left to the legislature, not the courts.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant shift in Ohio tort law, completely eliminating the long-standing defense of charitable immunity. By doing so, the Ohio Supreme Court aligned itself with the overwhelming majority of American jurisdictions. The ruling simplifies tort principles by removing a major exception to the general rule of liability for negligent conduct. As a practical matter, this decision forces all charitable organizations in Ohio to secure liability insurance and manage risks just as for-profit corporations do, fundamentally altering their operational and financial obligations.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Albritton v. Neighborhood Centers Ass'n for Child Development (1984)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"