The Ohio Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court's decision to dismiss a case filed by Latrice Carter against police officers Dylan O'Donnell and Amanda Rock. The case centers on claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress after the officers allegedly fired at Carter's daughter's vehicle while she was present. This ruling has implications for how emotional distress claims are treated in cases involving police conduct.

The court's decision, made on November 12, 2026, is significant as it allows Carter's claims to proceed, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases in the future. The ruling highlights the complexities of statutory immunity for public employees and the standards required to prove recklessness.

Background

Latrice Carter filed her complaint against police officers Dylan O'Donnell and Amanda Rock, who are employed by the Cleveland Police Department. The case arose from a tragic incident on July 21, 2025, when Carter's daughter was driving home. While police were responding to reports of threats against her daughter, they allegedly opened fire on the vehicle as it approached Carter's home.

Carter claims she was present during the incident and informed the officers that they were shooting at her daughter. Although her daughter was struck by gunfire, the medical examiner later determined that the fatal shot did not come from the police. Carter's complaint alleges that the officers' reckless behavior caused her severe emotional distress, including trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The case reached the Ohio Court of Appeals after the trial court granted the officers' motion to dismiss, stating that Carter's claims were barred by statutory immunity. The trial court found that Carter's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The Ruling

The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Sean C. Gallagher, reversed the trial court's decision. The court ruled that Carter's allegations of reckless conduct were sufficient to allow her case to proceed. The court stated, "This is not a case involving allegations of mere negligence. In this action, Carter’s complaint sets forth allegations of recklessness, that if taken as true, are clearly sufficient to survive a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."

The court emphasized that statutory immunity for public employees does not apply to claims of wanton or reckless conduct. It referenced previous cases to support its decision, including a comparison with the case of David v. Matter, where similar claims were allowed to proceed based on allegations of recklessness.

Impact

This ruling is significant for several reasons. It clarifies the legal standards for emotional distress claims against police officers and other public employees. The court's decision indicates that claims can proceed if there are sufficient allegations of recklessness, even in the face of statutory immunity.

The ruling may encourage other individuals who have experienced emotional distress due to police actions to pursue legal claims. It sets a precedent that could influence how courts handle similar cases in the future, particularly those involving police conduct and emotional distress claims.

What's Next

The case has been remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. It is unclear if the defendants will seek further appeal. No related cases were mentioned in the court's opinion.