In O'Toole v. Denihan

In O'Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374, 2008 Ohio 2574, 889 N.E.2d 505, a case also involving immunity, the court also addressed what constitutes reckless conduct for purposes of statutory political subdivision immunity and stated as follows: "An actor's conduct 'is in reckless disregard of the safety of others if he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.' Distilled to its essence, and in the context of R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b), recklessness is a perverse disregard of a known risk." Id. at P37. "Recklessness, therefore, necessarily requires something more than mere negligence. In fact, 'the actor must be conscious that his conduct will in all probability result in injury.'" Id. at P37.