Conley v. Wapakoneta City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2022 Ohio 2915

March 28, 2016: during an indoor baseball practice at Wapakoneta High School gym, an on-deck player (Conley) was struck in the eye when a teammate’s 'hit stick' left the batter’s hand; Conley later lost the left eye.
The hit stick was old, missing an end cap, and Allison (the coach) had wrapped electrical tape around its foam handle the day before to repair a tear; Allison acknowledged the tape obscured part of the knob and later said the modification made the stick more dangerous.
Allison was acting as the team coach, set up the gym as a makeshift baseball field, and positioned Conley roughly 10–15 feet from the batter; Allison rendered first aid and summoned help immediately.
Conley sued the school district and Allison for negligence and wanton/reckless conduct, arguing (among other things) the hit stick or lack of safety measures created a 'physical defect' and that the coach’s conduct was reckless.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on sovereign immunity grounds and excluded plaintiff’s expert affidavit (Shawn Pender); Conley appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert Pender’s affidavit	Pender’s opinions create triable issues on safety and recklessness	Pender lacks qualifications for this subject and affidavit fails rule/Civ.R.56 standards	Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding the affidavit; exclusion affirmed
Whether school engaged in a proprietary function (R.C. 2744.02(B)(2))	Using a modified bat/holding baseball activities is like private competitions—thus proprietary	Public education and school athletic activities are governmental functions	School activities are governmental; (B)(2) inapplicable; immunity remains
Whether injury was due to a 'physical defect' on the grounds (R.C. 2744.02(B)(4))	The hit stick (as modified) or absence of protective screening/netting made the premises physically defective	The hit stick was a movable item, not a structural ground defect; no physical defect as statute contemplates	Court held hit stick was not a 'physical defect' within meaning of (B)(4); immunity exception not met
Whether coach Allison lost employee immunity by acting wantonly or recklessly (R.C. 2744.03(A)(6))	Allison knowingly used/modified damaged equipment, positioned players too close in a gym without screens—evidence supports wanton/reckless conduct	Allison made a repair in good faith, reasonably believed risk was low based on experience; conduct at most negligent	Court found evidence showed, at most, negligence, not wanton/reckless conduct; Allison immune

Pelletier v. Campbell, 153 Ohio St.3d 611 (2018) (describes R.C. 2744 three-tier sovereign-immunity framework and summary-judgment posture)
McDonnell v. Dudley, 158 Ohio St.3d 388 (2019) (discusses application of R.C. 2744 and immunity exceptions)
Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. Liming, 89 Ohio St.3d 551 (2000) (distinguishes governmental and proprietary functions; certain competitions may be proprietary)
Conley v. Shearer, 64 Ohio St.3d 284 (1992) (authority for deciding immunity as a matter of law prior to trial)
Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 217 (1994) (summary judgment standard in immunity context)
Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (2012) (defines willful, wanton, and reckless standards used to evaluate employee immunity)
Moore v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 455 (2009) (recognizes that absence of a required safety feature can, in some cases, be a 'physical defect')
Spaid v. Bucyrus City Schools, 144 Ohio App.3d 360 (3d Dist. 2001) (treats school-sponsored field day as governmental activity)