End qualified immunity in Ohio

Yes. The proposed legislation states, "To provide that qualified immunity does not apply in civil actions against peace officers employed by a political subdivision who, under color of law, subject any individual to a deprivation of rights."

No. The proposed legislation does not end qualified immunity for all public employees.

Yes. The proposed legislation states, “any peace officer who, under color of law, and by the officer's act or omission in the course of the performance of the officer's official responsibilities, subjects or causes to be subjected any other individual to the deprivation of that individual's individual rights is liable to that individual in an action for damages for injury, death, or loss to person or for injunctive relief or any other appropriate relief.” (1) "Individual rights" means all rights of an individual that are secured by Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and that create binding obligations on government actors to protect those rights."

No. The proposed legislation does not address caps. The Ohio Revised Code, Section 2315.18, has a cap of $250,000 for damages for noneconomic loss. The code states, "Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(3) of this section, the amount of compensatory damages that represents damages for noneconomic loss that is recoverable in a tort action under this section to recover damages for injury or loss to person or property shall not exceed the greater of two hundred fifty thousand dollars or an amount that is equal to three times the economic loss, as determined by the trier of fact, of the plaintiff in that tort action to a maximum of three hundred fifty thousand dollars for each plaintiff in that tort action or a maximum of five hundred thousand dollars for each occurrence that is the basis of that tort action."

Partially. The proposed legislation states, "Subject to division (B)(2) of this section and except as provided in division (B)(3) of this section, any peace officer who fails to intervene in another peace officer's act or omission as described in division (B)(1) of this section is liable in an action for damages for injury, death, or loss to person or for injunctive relief or any other appropriate relief.”

Yes. The proposed legislation states "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, subject to division (D)(2) of this section and except as provided in division (F) of this section, the political subdivision that employs a peace officer shall indemnify and hold harmless the peace officer in the amount of any judgment or settlement, other than a judgment for punitive or exemplary damages, that is obtained against the officer in an action brought under this section."

Yes. The proposed legislation states, “(C)(1) If the court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff who brings an action under division (B)(1) of this section, the court shall award to the plaintiff any recoverable compensatory and punitive or exemplary damages if the action is for damages and any reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred by the plaintiff in any action described in that division.”

Yes. The proposed legislation states "If the political subdivision that employs a peace officer against whom an action is brought under this section determines that the officer did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that the officer's act or omission was lawful or the officer's failure to intervene in another peace officer's act or omission was lawful, the peace officer is personally liable pursuant to any judgment or settlement entered against the peace officer. The political subdivision that employs that peace officer shall not indemnify the officer under division (D) (2) of this section for five per cent of the amount of the judgment or settlement or twenty-five thousand dollars, whichever is less. (E) Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, if the judgment or settlement or any portion of the judgment or settlement entered against the peace officer is uncollectible from the officer, the peace officer's employer or employer's liability insurance shall satisfy the amount of the judgment or settlement that is so uncollectible."

No. The proposed legislation does not require that all records are publicly disclosed.