Leasure v. Adena Local School Dist., 973 N.E.2d 810

Heidi Leasure sustained injuries on September 17, 2007 after falling on school gym bleachers while descending with her child; the bleachers had not been fully extended or locked into place.
Plaintiffs Leasure and Earl Leasure, III sued Adena Local School District Board of Education for negligence (and asserted products liability claims against John Does).
The trial court denied summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact on immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 and on open-and-obvious defenses.
Appellees argued the bleachers’ improper setup created a physical defect under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) and that the open-and-obvious doctrine does not bar the claims.
Adena appealed, contending immunity should apply (no physical defect and/or discretionary-immunity defenses apply).
The court held that there were genuine issues on whether a physical defect existed due to improper setup, reversed in part to remove immunity under 2744.02(B)(4), and affirmed the denial of summary judgment, with jurisdictional issues precluding review of the open-and-obvious aspect; judgment affirmed overall.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 2744.02(B)(4) negates immunity	Leasure contends the bleachers had a perceivable defect.	Adena argues the bleachers had no physical defect and immunity should apply.	Bleachers’ improper setup created a physical defect, removing immunity.
Whether the open-and-obvious doctrine bars the claim	Leasure argues open-and-obvious does not bar claims given evidence of defect.	Adena argues open-and-obvious defense bars the negligence claim.	Open-and-obvious issue not reviewable on appeal due to final-immunity issue posture; judgment affirmed regarding immunity, open-and-obvious not addressed on the merits.

Hamrick v. Bryan City Sch. Dist., 96 Ohio St.3d 28? (6th Dist. 2011) (defined plain meaning of physical defect; perceivable imperfection diminishes utility)
DeMartino v. Poland Loc. Sch. Dist., 2011-Ohio-1466 (Mahoning App.) (physical defect if instrumentality failed to operate as intended due to perceivable condition)
Yeater v. Board of Ed., LaBrae Sch. Dist., 2010-Ohio-3684 (Trumbull App.) (loose bolts may constitute a perceivable imperfection causing defect)
Hall v. Fort Frye Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Educ., 111 Ohio App.3d 690, 676 N.E.2d 1241 (1996) (maintenance decisions vs. policy decisions; maintenance not inherently discretionary)
Conley v. Shearer, 64 Ohio St.3d 284, 292, 595 N.E.2d 862 (1992) (immunity analysis as a matter of law)
McVey v. Cincinnati, 109 Ohio App.3d 159, 671 N.E.2d 1288 (1995) (discretionary-immunity limits; maintenance decisions distinguished)
Hallett v. Stow Bd. Of Edn., 89 Ohio App.3d 309, 624 N.E.2d 272 (1993) (narrow reading of discretionary defense)