2014 Ohio 1110
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Jan. 23, 2012, sixth-grade students at Trotwood‑Madison Elementary were supervised by six substitute teachers (≈174 students; ~29:1 ratio) because the regular teachers had approved professional leave.
- The school had established and periodically practiced dismissal procedures requiring students to line up and be led by each classroom teacher to the buses. No prior injuries in five years during dismissal.
- At dismissal students ran in the hallway; plaintiff D. was pushed, fell, and was trampled, later treated for spinal and neck injuries.
- Moon (guardian) sued the school district, principal Tyrone Nadir, vice principal Taiwo Sutton, and unnamed substitute teachers for reckless supervision and failure to control students.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting sovereign immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744; the trial court granted judgment for defendants, concluding immunity applied and plaintiffs failed to show recklessness.
- The appellate court affirmed: no applicable statutory exception to the district’s immunity, and no genuine issue of material fact that administrators or substitutes acted recklessly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the school district is liable despite R.C. 2744 immunity (exception for negligent acts on school grounds due to physical defects) | Moon contends the district is liable for injuries occurring on school grounds because supervision was inadequate | District argues R.C. 2744 grants immunity and no statutory exception (e.g., B(4) for physical defects) applies here | Held: District immune — no evidence injury was caused by a physical defect, so R.C. 2744.02(B) exceptions do not apply |
| Whether school administrators and substitute teachers lost employee immunity by acting in a wanton/reckless manner | Moon argues Nadir/Sutton recklessly understaffed/assigned substitutes and substitutes recklessly failed to control students | Defendants assert their conduct was not reckless; established dismissal procedures existed and substitutes supervised as described | Held: No genuine issue of material fact of recklessness. Plaintiffs showed at most negligence; employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) protects defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (summary judgment standard)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (moving party burden on summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (opposition evidence required after movant meets burden)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishing wanton and reckless; employee immunity exceptions)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 70 Ohio St.3d 351 (definition of reckless disregard)
- Rankin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Children and Family Servs., 118 Ohio St.3d 392 (high standard for recklessness)
- Supportive Solutions, L.L.C. v. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, 137 Ohio St.3d 23 (R.C. 2744 as the statutory scheme for political‑subdivision liability)
- Estate of Graves v. Circleville, 124 Ohio St.3d 339 (purpose of R.C. 2744 and preservation of fiscal integrity)
- Riffle v. Physicians & Surgeons Ambulance Serv., Inc., 135 Ohio St.3d 357 (availability of defenses under R.C. 2744.03 after an exception applies)