M.H. v. City of Cuyahoga Falls
134 Ohio St. 3d 65
| Ohio | 2012Background
- M.H. and his parents sued the City of Cuyahoga Falls after an injury at the city's indoor natatorium.
- The city asserted immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) as to governmental functions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding that R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) did not apply to injuries at an indoor pool.
- The court of appeals reversed, concluding the pool fell within a building used in performing a governmental function, thus the exception apply.
- The Supreme Court granted review to address whether the city is immune under the tort-immunity scheme and whether the exception applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indoor pool falls within the R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) exception. | M.H. argues the pool injury occurred on grounds of a building used in performing a governmental function. | Cuyahoga Falls maintains immunity unless the B(4) exception applies. | Yes; B(4) applies, so immunity does not bar the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (1998) (pool operation exception to immunity applies under B(4))
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (summary judgment standard for Civ.R. 56)