Douglas v. Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn.
2020 Ohio 1133
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2017 Douglas sued Columbus City Schools Board of Education, the school district, and teacher Kirk Bardos for injuries sustained May 24, 2011 when a student-built model rocket launched during a class demonstration veered and struck her lower right leg.
- Douglas alleged Bardos failed to exercise proper precautions and the school defendants negligently permitted an unsafe launch and failed to give proper instruction.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; Douglas responded and moved for summary judgment asserting res ipsa loquitur.
- The trial court found the school board (not the district) was the proper political-subdivision defendant, concluded the activity was a governmental function, found no applicable R.C. 2744.02(B) exception, and held immunity was restored under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5); it also held Bardos immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6).
- The court denied Douglas’s res ipsa summary-judgment motion and granted summary judgment to defendants; Douglas appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the school board enjoys political-subdivision immunity under R.C. 2744 | Douglas contends exceptions remove immunity | School board says initial immunity applies for governmental function | Court: Initial immunity applies under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) |
| Whether the physical-defect exception (R.C. 2744.02(B)(4)) applies to a student-built rocket | Rocket malfunction is a "physical defect" on school grounds removing immunity | Rocket was student-constructed and not a grounds/building physical defect; exception inapplicable | Court: Exception inapplicable — alleged defect arose from activity/design, not a grounds/building defect |
| Whether immunity is restored under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) for exercise of discretion (supervision/use of equipment) | Douglas argues discretion defense should not apply given alleged negligence | Defendants: Bardos exercised discretionary judgment about equipment, supervision, and safety; no malice/bad faith/wanton recklessness | Court: Immunity restored under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5); Bardos’s conduct was discretionary and not malicious/wanton/reckless |
| Whether Douglas was entitled to summary judgment via res ipsa loquitur | Douglas sought summary judgment by invoking res ipsa to infer negligence | Defendants: res ipsa is evidentiary only and cannot establish a separate cause or automatic liability | Court: Denied Douglas’s motion — res ipsa is an evidentiary doctrine, not a standalone cause; summary judgment for plaintiff inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 (sets three-tier R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)
- Elston v. Howland Local Schools, 113 Ohio St.3d 314 (teacher discretion and R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) defense)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 70 Ohio St.3d 351 (definition of wanton conduct)
- Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102 (definition of recklessness)
- Rankin v. Cuyahoga County Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 118 Ohio St.3d 392 (standards for converting negligence into wanton/reckless conduct)
- Moss v. Lorain County Bd. of Mental Retardation, 185 Ohio App.3d 395 (physical-defect exception applied to premises/design allegations)