Hawsman v. Cuyahoga Falls, 2011 Ohio 3795

Hawsman, a minor, injured his knee at the City of Cuyahoga Falls Natatorium on May 12, 2006.
The City operates and maintains the Natatorium.
Plaintiffs filed suit July 10, 2009 against the City and five unidentified defendants for negligent maintenance of the pool/diving board.
The City moved for summary judgment May 26, 2010, arguing immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4).
Trial court granted summary judgment August 17, 2010, and Hawsmans appealed.
This court reverses, holding the B(4) exception applies to the indoor pool as a building used in performing a governmental function.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) applies to the indoor pool	Hawsman asserts B(4) applies to indoor pools	City argues B(4) does not apply to indoor municipal pools	B(4) applies; City not immune

Cater v. City of Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998) (interprets 2744.02(B)(4) and breadth of its applicability to buildings)
Moore v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 455 (2009) (abandoned recreational vs. governmental-business distinction; focuses on statutory text)
Hopper v. City of Elyria, ? (2009) (overruled in light of Moore and Cater criticisms; prior precedent binding in 9th Dist.)
Hubbard v. Canton City Sch. Bd. of Ed., 2002-Ohio-6718 (2002) (endorses three-tier immunity analysis under 2744.02)
Thompson v. Bagley, 2005-Ohio-1921 (2005) (questions Cater-like distinction; affects pool immunity analysis)
O’Connor v. City of Fremont, 2010-Ohio-4159 (2010) (addresses 2744.02(B)(4) applicability to pools; critiques Cater)
Mathews v. City of Waverly, 2010-Ohio-347 (2010) (rejects strict recreational vs. governmental-use dichotomy; supports Moore interpretation)