2023 Ohio 3685
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- On May 1, 2016, eighth-grader Tristan Lewis was struck in the head by a shot put thrown by teammate Jamison Clark during pre-meet warmups and suffered serious injuries.
- Plaintiffs (Tristan and his parents) sued Ayersville Local School District, coach/teacher Daniel Mix, Clark, and Clark’s parents alleging negligent supervision, lack of safety rules/protocols, and related claims.
- The school district and Mix moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) based on immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744; the trial court granted dismissal as to both the district and Mix.
- On appeal the Lewises challenged (1) the trial court’s grant of immunity to the school district (arguing the R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) "physical defect" exception applies) and (2) the grant of immunity to Mix (arguing his conduct was willful/wanton/reckless under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)).
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the school district (no allegations of a physical defect on the premises) but reversed dismissal as to Mix, finding the complaint sufficiently alleged willful/wanton/reckless conduct to survive a 12(B)(6) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the school district’s immunity is defeated by R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) ("physical defect" exception) | Alleged lack of safety precautions/safety measures on school grounds supports a physical-defect exception to immunity | Complaint contains no factual allegation of a physical defect or missing safety device on the premises; general immunity applies | Affirmed — complaint fails to allege a physical defect; 2744.02(B)(4) not invoked |
| Whether coach Mix is entitled to employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) despite allegations he left students unsupervised (willful/wanton/reckless) | Alleged Mix often missed supervisory duties, delegated to unqualified students, and left athletes unsupervised during inherently dangerous activity — rising to willful/wanton/reckless conduct | Employee immunity applies; negligence alone insufficient to overcome immunity | Reversed as to Mix — complaint plausibly alleges willful/wanton/reckless conduct so dismissal under 12(B)(6) was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (standard that dismissal requires showing plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling recovery)
- Rankin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 118 Ohio St.3d 392 (three-tier R.C. 2744 immunity/exception/defense framework)
- Baker v. Wayne Cty., 147 Ohio St.3d 51 (application of political-subdivision immunity analysis)
- Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231 (employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03 and exceptions)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (definitions of willful, wanton, and reckless conduct)
- Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 167 Ohio St.3d 390 (notice pleading standard)