2020 Ohio 1134
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Coaches from Thomas Worthington High School organized an authorized, school‑approved basketball trip to Fripp Island, SC; players and some coaches' families stayed in a rented beachfront house. Parents (including Clark's mother) signed a release.
- On June 11, 2017, after a team practice and a coaches' safety meeting (rules: buddy system; stay where you can touch bottom), several players went to the ocean; 16‑year‑old Franklin "Eric" Clark went into deeper water and drowned. Coaches attempted rescue; Clark's body was recovered the next day.
- The estate sued the school district, board, TWHS, multiple administrators, and four coaches for negligence and willful/wanton/reckless misconduct; several defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the district and all coaches, citing governmental immunity and statutory discretionary defenses; the estate appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed summary judgment de novo, addressed statutory immunity (R.C. Chapter 2744) and the estate's claims that the trip was proprietary, that coaches acted wantonly or recklessly, and that waivers/recreational‑user doctrine did not bar recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court misapply the summary‑judgment burden? | Court shifted burden to plaintiff; movants failed to prove absence of genuine dispute. | Court applied standard correctly; movants met burden and estate failed to raise specific facts. | No error; burden allocation was proper. |
| Was the Fripp Island trip a governmental (school) function or a proprietary activity? | Trip involved beach/recreational activity customarily done by nongovernmental actors; thus proprietary exception applies. | Trip was an authorized, coach‑organized, educational/athletic activity integral to public education. | Trip was part of governmental function (public education); immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) applies. |
| Do R.C. 2744.03 defenses (A)(3) and (A)(5) bar liability for the school/district? | Coaches negligently failed to prepare/supervise; their actions fall outside discretionary immunity. | Coaches had delegated discretion to plan, set rules, and supervise; their choices are protected unless made with malicious purpose/bad faith/wanton/reckless conduct. | Court found coaches' planning and supervision discretionary; (A)(3)/(A)(5) immunity applies absent evidence of malice/bad faith/wanton or reckless conduct. |
| Are the individual coaches entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) and did they act wantonly/recklessly? | Coaches acted willfully, wantonly, and recklessly (inadequate water‑safety plan; failure to supervise rip‑current risk). | Coaches held safety meetings, communicated risks, supervised the beach area, attempted rescue; no evidence of conscious disregard, malice, or history of rip currents at that beach. | No genuine issue that coaches acted wantonly/recklessly; immunity applies to individual coaches. |
| Did expert affidavit (claiming willful/wanton misconduct) create a material dispute? | Expert opined coaches engaged in willful/wanton misconduct and criticized safety measures. | Expert's legal conclusions on ultimate issue do not create factual dispute; record shows steps taken to mitigate risks and lack of known rip‑current history. | Expert legal conclusions insufficient to defeat immunity; no triable issue on wanton/reckless conduct. |
| Were the liability waiver and recreational‑user doctrine dispositive? | Waiver invalid/insufficient; recreational‑user doctrine inapplicable. | Trial court had also relied on waiver and recreational‑user defense below. | These issues were rendered moot on appeal because immunity resolved the case in defendants' favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54 (summary‑judgment standard; de novo review)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party's burden under Civ.R. 56)
- Elston v. Howland Local Schools, 113 Ohio St.3d 314 (political subdivision acts through employees; coaches' discretion)
- Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. Liming, 89 Ohio St.3d 551 (distinguishing governmental vs. proprietary functions)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (definitions of wanton and reckless conduct)
- O'Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 (recklessness requires conscious awareness of probable harm)
- Marcum v. Talawanda City Schools, 108 Ohio App.3d 412 (teacher/coaching supervision and discretionary immunity)