The Ohio Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's dismissal of a negligence case involving the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and a bus driver. The ruling allows the case to proceed after the court found that the lower court had prematurely dismissed the case based on political subdivision immunity. This decision could impact how similar cases are handled in the future.
The case, Higgins v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, was filed by Taleemah Higgins after she suffered injuries when a bus door closed on her leg while she was boarding the bus on July 25, 2023. The incident led Higgins to file a complaint against RTA and the bus driver on June 13, 2025. Initially, RTA moved to dismiss some claims in the complaint, and after Higgins filed an amended complaint, RTA again sought dismissal. Ultimately, on February 19, 2026, the trial court dismissed the entire complaint, ruling that both RTA and the driver were immune from liability under Ohio law.
The ruling was based on R.C. Chapter 2744, which outlines political subdivision immunity, stating that political subdivisions are generally not liable for damages in civil actions. However, the court's decision to dismiss the case raised concerns about whether the dismissal was appropriate given the circumstances of the incident.
Higgins appealed the dismissal, arguing that the trial court erred in granting RTA's motion to dismiss and in finding that RTA was immune from liability. She contended that the court failed to apply the motor vehicle exception to the political subdivision immunity and that her claims of reckless conduct against the driver should not have been dismissed.
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Eileen A. Gallagher, reviewed the case and found that the trial court had indeed erred in its dismissal. The court emphasized that it must accept the factual allegations in Higgins' amended complaint as true and make reasonable inferences in her favor when reviewing a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.
In the court's opinion, it stated, "Higgins’ allegations that the Driver negligently operated an RTA bus are within the scope of R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) under the second tier of the political subdivision immunity test." The court also noted that Higgins had sufficiently alleged that the driver acted recklessly, which could allow for liability under Ohio law.
Judge Gallagher's opinion highlighted that the trial court's dismissal of the case was premature, as it did not allow for a full examination of the facts surrounding the incident. The court ruled that the allegations made by Higgins were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, stating, "Granting dismissal of this complaint based on the affirmative defense of political subdivision immunity was premature."
The ruling has significant implications for Higgins and others who may find themselves in similar situations. It reaffirms that political subdivisions, like RTA, can be held liable under certain circumstances, particularly when allegations of negligence or recklessness are present. This decision may encourage individuals to pursue claims against public entities when they believe they have been wronged.
As a result of this ruling, the case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. This means that the trial court will now have to reevaluate the case in light of the appellate court's findings and allow for a more thorough examination of the claims made by Higgins.
Moving forward, the case could set a precedent for how courts in Ohio handle similar claims against public entities. The court's decision underscores the importance of allowing cases to be heard on their merits rather than being dismissed at an early stage based on immunity defenses.
It remains to be seen whether RTA will seek to appeal this ruling further or if there are any related cases pending that could influence the outcome of Higgins' case. The legal landscape surrounding political subdivision immunity in Ohio may continue to evolve as more cases are brought before the courts.