Love v. City of Port Clinton
1988 Ohio LEXIS 177, 524 N.E.2d 166, 37 Ohio St. 3d 98 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining the applicable statute of limitations, courts must look to the essential character of the alleged tort, not the form in which it is pleaded. A claim based on an intentional, offensive touching constitutes a battery and is subject to the statute of limitations for battery, even if framed as a negligence claim.
Facts:
- Officer Hickman, a police officer, subdued and handcuffed a man named Love.
- Love alleged that Hickman used 'improper police procedures and methods' during the encounter.
- As a direct result of being subdued and handcuffed, Love sustained personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Love filed a complaint against Officer Hickman in the trial court.
- Hickman filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the one-year statute of limitations for battery had expired.
- The trial court granted Hickman's motion and dismissed the case.
- Love (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court's decision.
- The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio for a final determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a claim alleging injury from an officer's 'negligent' subduing and handcuffing governed by the one-year statute of limitations for assault and battery, rather than the two-year statute for negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - H. Brown, J.
Yes. A claim alleging injury from an officer's subduing and handcuffing is governed by the one-year statute of limitations for battery. The court's primary duty is to examine the actual nature or subject matter of the case, not the label the plaintiff uses in the complaint. The acts of 'subduing' and 'handcuffing' are inherently intentional acts of contact. An intentional act that causes a harmful or offensive contact is the legal definition of a battery. Allowing a plaintiff to plead an intentional tort as negligence would circumvent and defeat the purpose of the shorter statute of limitations specifically enacted for assault and battery. The court rejected the argument that alleging 'improper procedures' instead of 'excessive force' changes the analysis, because the underlying act remains an intentional, offensive touching, which is the essence of a battery. Whether the officer's action was privileged is a defense and does not alter the fundamental nature of the tort itself.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle of substance over form, particularly in the context of statutes of limitations. It prevents plaintiffs from using 'clever pleading' to artfully dodge shorter limitation periods for intentional torts by recasting them as negligence claims. The ruling has significant implications for civil rights and police misconduct litigation, as it clarifies that claims based on intentional acts like handcuffing will be treated as batteries for limitation purposes, regardless of the plaintiff's chosen terminology. This creates a stricter, shorter deadline for bringing such claims to court.
