In Webb v. Edwards, the Court defined the high standard of wanton and reckless misconduct as follows: "'Wanton and reckless conduct' is defined as perversely disregarding a known risk, or acting or intentionally failing to act in contravention of a duty, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable person to realize such conduct creates an unreasonable risk of harm substantially greater than the risk necessary to make the conduct negligent." Webb, at P28. Employees of political subdivisions are immune from liability for acts or omissions connected with governmental or proprietary functions unless: (1) the employee's acts or omissions were manifestly outside the scope of the employee's employment; (2) the employee's acts or omissions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner; (3) civil liability is expressly imposed upon the employee by a section of the Revised Code. Webb, at P19, citing R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)R.C. 2744.03 covers defenses and immunities, provides: "(A) In a civil action brought against a political subdivision or an employee of a political subdivision to recover damages for injury, death, or loss to persons or property allegedly caused by any act or omission in connection with a governmental or proprietary function, the following defenses or immunities may be asserted to establish nonliability: (6) the employee is immune from liability unless one of the following applies: (a) the employee's acts or omissions were manifestly outside the scope of the employee's employment or official responsibilities; (b) the employee's acts or omissions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner; (c) Liability is expressly imposed upon the employee by a section of the Revised Code."