A-M.R. v. Columbus City School Dist., 2015 Ohio 3781

In May 2012 fifth‑grader O.R. was injured when a swinging classroom door slammed and a top‑pane of glass shattered, slicing her wrist; the pane had been replaced by the school district in March 2010.
O.R. and her mother produced deposition excerpts, photographs, and medical records showing the glass shattered and caused significant wrist injury; an excerpt had O.R. testify that the pane was "ordinary glass."
Plaintiff (A‑M.R., on behalf of O.R.) sued Columbus City School District for negligence and sought to overcome statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) by alleging the door contained non‑safety glass in violation of the Ohio Building Code.
The district moved for summary judgment arguing lack of evidence that any employee negligence caused the injury; in reply the district characterizes the glass as "believed to be ordinary window glass."
The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding there was "absolutely no evidence" the pane was defective; the court’s entry cited only the complaint and did not state it had considered the deposition excerpts or other submitted materials.
On appeal the Tenth District reversed, holding the trial court erred by failing to consider plaintiff's evidentiary submissions (including the deposition) before finding no evidence of a defect; the case was remanded. Judge Sadler dissented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) exception (liability for injuries due to physical defects in public buildings) applies	Glass in swinging door was ordinary (not safety) glass in violation of building code; that raises a genuine issue of a physical defect	No evidence that any physical defect (non‑safety glass) caused the injury or that any employee negligence caused the injury	Reversed: Court found plaintiff proffered evidence (including deposition excerpt and district's own reply language) that could create a factual issue on defect; trial court erred by not considering that evidence
Whether trial court may base summary judgment on grounds not argued by movant and whether it properly considered plaintiff's submissions (including deposition excerpts)	Trial court should have considered the submitted deposition excerpts and other materials; district did not object to those excerpts	Trial court may disregard unfiled/un‑authenticated deposition excerpts in its discretion; lack of signature/certification justified ignoring them	Court held trial court failed to comply with Civ.R.56(C)’s duty to examine the record; failure to consider submitted evidence was reversible error (trial court must consider or explain exclusion)

Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998) (framework for political‑subdivision immunity and exceptions under R.C. 2744)
Chambers v. St. Mary's School, 82 Ohio St.3d 563 (1998) (building‑code violations may be strong evidence of negligence)
Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (2009) (code violation is not negligence per se but is probative on dangerous condition)
Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (trial court must examine all appropriate materials in ruling on summary judgment)
Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (1988) (moving party must identify grounds for summary judgment so nonmovant can respond)