DeMartino v. Poland Local School Dist.
2011 Ohio 1466
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- DeMartino sued Poland Local School District, the Board, Olesko, and Mashburn for injuries from a lawn-mower incident during high school band practice (Aug. 16, 2007).
- Mashburn, a school employee, mowed adjacent athletic fields while Olesko supervised band practice; a metal object from the mower struck DeMartino, causing serious head injuries and paralysis.
- Two safety rules existed: no mowing near students and use of the discharge chute when bagging debris; the mower was operated without the discharge chute installed.
- Manufacturer warnings advised debris removal, nonpresence of people nearby, and proper installation of safety devices; these warnings were not followed.
- Mashburn removed the bag but did not install the discharge chute; Olesko approved mowing near the parking area.
- Trial court denied Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings; the court later issued a partial reversal/affirmance on immunity issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district and board are immune under R.C. 2744.02(B) and 2744.03 | Band operation is proprietary; Olesko’s alleged negligence defeats immunity. | Band operation is governmental; no R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) exception applies; Mashburn’s conduct may trigger B(4) and 2744.03 defenses. | Olesko immune; district and board not immune for Mashburn’s conduct on B(4); Mashburn role not immune. |
| Whether Mashburn’s mowing near the band falls within R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) and if 2744.03 defenses apply | Mashburn’s conduct caused a physical defect and negligence satisfying B(4); immunity may be defeated. | Mashburn’s actions could be reckless; 2744.03(A)(5) may shield the district/board if Mashburn acted with discretion without malice. | Mashburn may fall within B(4) and 2744.03(A)(5) does not bar; court found sufficient pleadings to survive regarding Mashburn. |
| Whether Olesko’s actions rise to wanton/willful conduct | Olesko authorized mowing near band area; failure to object shows recklessness. | Olesko’s conduct, if proven, may be negligent but not willful or wanton without knowledge of discharging chute absence. | Olesko did not meet the standard for wanton/willful conduct; immunity applies for Olesko. |
| Is Mashburn’s alleged willful/wanton conduct sufficient to defeat immunity for Mashburn | Mashburn acted with reckless disregard by mower proximity to band and removing bag without discharge chute. | Willful/wanton standard requires knowledge of likely harm; pleadings show potential. | Mashburn’s pleadings support potential willful/wanton conduct; immunity may not bar claims against Mashburn at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (final appealable order when immunity denied by trial court)
- Estate of Graves v. City of Circleville, 2005-Ohio-929 (4th Dist.) (public off-street parking function analysis in proprietary/governmental functions)
- Moss v. Lorain County Board of Mental Retardation, 2009-Ohio-6931 (9th Dist.) (two-pronged B(4) analysis in school environment)
- Bolling v. North Olmstead City School Board of Education, 2008-Ohio-5347 (8th Dist.) (two-pronged B(4) analysis with equipment defect)
- Moore v. Lorain Metropolitan Housing Authority, 121 Ohio St.3d 455 (2009) (housing authority as governmental unit; B(4) analysis remand for defect consideration)
- Wagner v. Heavlin, 136 Ohio App.3d 719 (2000) (recklessness standard for immunity decisions)
- Rankin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Children and Family Servs., 118 Ohio St.3d 392 (2008) (definition of wanton, willful, reckless conduct)
- Adams v. Ward, 2010-Ohio-4851 (7th Dist.) (high standard for recklessness; jury question unless clear)
- Greene, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998) (narrow reading of defenses in immunity analysis)