2016 Ohio 169
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Seven-year-old Jacob Moss, a special-education student, burned his chest and abdomen by pulling a full pot of coffee off a countertop in his classroom kitchen; he suffered second-degree burns and required hospital treatment.
- Jacob attended a school operated by the Lorain County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (Board) under an IEP and had a personal aide (Andrea Hamilton) who had limited experience and had not received Jacob’s IEP/behavior plan before starting.
- At the time of the incident, the classroom kitchen contained a coffeemaker used by staff; the coffee pot was on a waist‑high counter near the edge and was accessible to students, according to depositions.
- Jacob’s mother sued the Board and others for negligence. The Board moved for summary judgment based on statutory immunity under Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 2744; the trial court denied summary judgment.
- On appeal, the Ninth District considered whether an exception to political-subdivision immunity — R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) (liability for injuries due to physical defects in buildings) — applied, and whether the Board was entitled to immunity as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) exception (injury due to "physical defect" in building) applies | Moss: coffee pot and kitchen setup were a physical defect—improper design/maintenance allowing student access; caused the injury | Board: no evidence the kitchen or items were defective or failed to perform as intended; general presence of coffee pot not inherently dangerous | Held: No genuine issue that injury was "due to a physical defect"; plaintiffs failed to present specific evidence creating a triable issue, so exception does not apply |
| Whether prior appellate rulings bind this summary-judgment review (law-of-the-case) | Moss: earlier appeals held exception applies and Board not immune, so law of the case controls | Board: prior rulings were on motions for judgment on the pleadings and accepted pleadings as true; summary judgment review differs and law-of-the-case does not apply here | Held: Law-of-the-case inapplicable because earlier rulings addressed different procedural posture (motions on the pleadings) |
| Whether factual disputes about employee negligence preclude immunity determination | Moss: employee negligence caused the injury; factual disputes exist | Board: because plaintiffs cannot show the physical-defect exception, immunity stands; court need not reach employee negligence or available defenses | Held: Court did not reach whether negligence exception or statutory defenses applied because physical-defect element failed |
| Whether summary judgment standard was met | Moss: disputed facts (location/placement of pot, prior precautions) create triable issues | Board: plaintiffs failed to produce specific evidentiary material to meet reciprocal burden under Dresher for summary judgment denial | Held: On de novo review, summary judgment for Board is appropriate because plaintiffs provided no specific facts showing genuine issue on the physical-defect element |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment standard and Civ.R. 56)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (movant’s burden and reciprocal burden at summary judgment)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (doctrine of law of the case)
- Moss v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation, 185 Ohio App.3d 395 (prior Ninth District appellate decision addressing pleadings-stage ruling)
- Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231 (three-tier R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)