{¶ 2} According to undisputed facts, on September 17, 2001, while Keyonne Bush, a middle school student, was walking home from school along the berm of Lockbourne Road in Columbus, he was struck and injured by a vehicle that was driven by defendant-appellee Edward Beggrow.
{¶ 3} Thereafter, in a "second amended complaint,"2 plaintiffs sued Beggrow, Columbus City School Board of Education ("school board"), City of Columbus ("city"), Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, and Cincinnati Insurance Company. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint asserted five causes of action: (1) negligence and infliction of emotional distress against Beggrow, (2) declaratory judgment against Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania for the purpose of establishing underinsured motorist coverage, (3) declaratory judgment against the Cincinnati Insurance Company for the purpose of establishing underinsured motorist coverage, (4) negligence by the school board, (5) negligence by the city, and (6) a demand for prejudgment interest.
{¶ 4} During the course of litigation, the school board filed a cross-claim against Beggrow. The school board's cross-claim alleged that if the school board were found liable, then any damages were the direct and proximate fault of Beggrow and the school board should be entitled to indemnification and contribution from Beggrow.
{¶ 5} Pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a), plaintiffs later dismissed without prejudice Cincinnati Insurance Company and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. The trial court also dismissed Beggrow with prejudice. Following the dismissal of these defendants, the city and school board separately moved for summary judgment, and plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment against the city and school board. On November 6, 2003, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the city and school board.
{¶ 6} From this judgment, plaintiffs appeal and assign two errors for our review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
The trial court erred in granting the city of columbus' motion for summary judgment against appellants.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
The trial court erred in granting the columbus city school board of education's motion for summary judgment on grounds that the school board is immune from liability for appellants' negligent supervision claims.
{¶ 7} Our analysis begins by determining whether this court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal. An appellate court may sua sponte raise the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction. State exrel. White v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. (1997),
{¶ 8} Here, although the trial court's judgment granted the city's and school board's motions for summary judgment, the trial court's judgment made no express determination concerning plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment. We observe, however, that in its decision, the trial court earlier denied plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment. In view of the trial court's decision and the language the trial court employed in its judgment, we construe the trial court's judgment as impliedly overruling plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. SeeEconomy Fire Cas. Co. v. Craft General Contractors, Inc. (1982),
{¶ 9} The trial court's judgment also made no determination concerning the school board's cross-claim against Beggrow and the trial court's judgment lacked Civ.R. 54(B) language. However, because the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the school board, we conclude that the effect of the trial court's judgment was to render moot the school board's cross-claim against Beggrow, which was based upon theories of contribution and indemnification. See Wise v. Gursky (1981),
{¶ 10} Accordingly, having concluded that the trial court's judgment impliedly overruled plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment and the trial court's judgment rendered moot the school board's cross-claim against Beggrow, we find the trial court in its judgment disposed of all claims before it. We therefore conclude the trial court's judgment is a final appealable order and the matter before us is ripe for appellate review. See, generally, R.C.
{¶ 11} Appellate review of a lower court's granting of summary judgment is de novo. Mitnaul v. Fairmount Presbyterian Church,
{¶ 12} Summary judgment is proper when a movant for summary judgment demonstrates: (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists; (2) the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence most strongly construed in its favor. Civ.R. 56; State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd.
(1997),
{¶ 13} Under Civ.R. 56(C), a movant bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record demonstrating the absence of a material fact. Dresher v. Burt (1996),
{¶ 14} Plaintiffs' first assignment of error asserts the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the city. According to plaintiffs' second amended complaint, the city was negligent because it allegedly failed to keep the berm along Lockbourne Road free and clear from nuisance, defect, and danger, thereby allegedly directly and proximately causing Keyonne Bush's injuries. The city has asserted the defense of political subdivision immunity pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2744.
{¶ 15} "The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized that the availability of statutory immunity raises a purely legal issue that is properly determined by a court prior to trial." Hall v. Ft. Frye Loc. SchoolDist. Bd. of Edn. (1996),
{¶ 16} Enacted in response to judicial abolishment of the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity and codified in R.C. Chapter 2744, the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act "established statutory tort immunity in some cases in which political subdivisions, including cities, may otherwise be sued in negligence." Haynes v. Franklin,
{¶ 17} "Determining whether a political subdivision is immune from tort liability pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2744 involves a three-tiered analysis." Colbert v. Cleveland,
{¶ 18} Under the statutory framework of R.C. Chapter 2744 that establishes a general grant of immunity to a political subdivision, the term "governmental function" specifically includes the "maintenance and repair of roads." Haynes, at ¶ 10; former R.C.
{¶ 19} Pursuant to former R.C.
Subject to sections
* * *
(3) Except as otherwise provided in section
* * *
(5) In addition to the circumstances described in divisions (B)(1) to (4) of this section, a political subdivision is liable for injury, death, or loss to person or property when liability is expressly imposed upon the political subdivision by a section of the Revised Code, including, but not limited to, sections
See, also, former R.C.
{¶ 20} In Haynes, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated that inManufacturer's Natl. Bank of Detroit v. Erie Cty. Road Comm. (1992),
{¶ 21} Accordingly, construing Haynes and former R.C.
{¶ 22} In the present case, at the time of the accident, the berm upon which Keyonne Bush was walking was in repair and free of obstructions. Plaintiffs assert, however, that the presence of the students walking along the berm following dismissal from school created a nuisance for which the city is liable.
{¶ 23} Even assuming, arguendo, that the presence of students walking along the berm of Lockbourne Road following dismissal from school constituted a nuisance, we find former R.C.
{¶ 24} Construing earlier decisions in Manufacturer's Natl. Bank,
supra, and Franks v. Lopez (1994),
* * * To withstand a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must satisfy the first prong of the test by establishing that the condition alleged to constitute a nuisance creates a danger for ordinary traffic on the regularly traveled portion of the road. To satisfy the second prong of the test the plaintiff must establish that the cause of the condition was other than a decision regarding design and construction. * * *
Id. at ¶ 18. (Emphasis sic.)
{¶ 25} Thus, construing Haynes, even assuming that the absence of a sidewalk along Lockbourne Road requiring students to walk along a berm constituted a nuisance by creating a danger for the students and drivers, thereby satisfying the first prong of the Haynes test, we must determine whether the absence of a sidewalk was other than a decision regarding design and construction. See Haynes, at ¶ 18.
{¶ 26} Pursuant to former R.C.
(A) In a civil action brought against a political subdivision or an employee of a political subdivision to recover damages for injury, death, or loss to persons or property allegedly caused by any act or omission in connection with a governmental or proprietary function, the following defenses or immunities may be asserted to establish nonliability:
* * *
(5) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the injury, death, or loss to persons or property resulted from the exercise of judgment or discretion in determining whether to acquire, or how to use, equipment, supplies, materials, personnel, facilities, and other resources unless the judgment or discretion was exercised with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.
{¶ 27} Here, according to deposition testimony of John Sliemers, a neighborhood mobility engineer, acting traffic calming coordinator and pedestrian coordinator for the city, prior to the accident, the city had no knowledge of any students or pedestrians having been struck by a car along the portion of Lockbourne Road where Bush's accident occurred.7 Additionally, according to Sliemers, the decision to not install sidewalks was an exercise of discretion or judgment concerning the use of available city resources.8
{¶ 28} However, even though the decision to not install sidewalks along the portion of Lockbourne Road where the accident occurred was an exercise of discretion, we must still determine whether the city's discretion was exercised with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.
{¶ 29} In Hancock v. Ashenhurst, Franklin App. No. 03AP-1163,
* * * "`Malice' is the willful and intentional design to do injury or the intention or desire to harm another, usually seriously, through conduct which is unlawful or unjustified. * * * `Bad faith' involves a dishonest purpose, conscious wrongdoing, the breach of a known duty through some ulterior motive or ill will, as in the nature of fraud, or an actual intent to mislead or deceive another." * * *
Id. at ¶ 11, quoting Cook v. Cincinnati (1995),
{¶ 30} Furthermore, in Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept.
(1994),
{¶ 31} Based upon our review of the evidence, we do not find that the city's judgment or discretion was exercised with willful and intentional design to do injury, involved a dishonest purpose, or demonstrated a failure to exercise any care whatsoever. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the city's judgment was exercised with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.
{¶ 32} Therefore, because the decision to not install sidewalks was based upon an exercise of judgment or discretion concerning the use of available resources that was not exercised with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner and, absent any actual or constructive notice, we conclude that pursuant to Haynes, supra, and former R.C.
{¶ 33} At oral argument, plaintiffs also suggested that the city was liable due to high grass beside the berm that required students to walk closer to the roadway instead of walking along the grassy areas that were further from the roadway. Based upon the record, we cannot determine whether the city had responsibility for maintaining the grassy stretches of land at issue. Accordingly, having failed to establish that the city was responsible for maintaining the grassy stretches of land, we conclude that plaintiffs have failed in their burden to establish the city's liability based upon this theory. See Ayers-Sterrett, Inc. v. Cilli (Feb. 22, 2002), Van Wert App. No. 15-01-09 (observing that in a civil case a plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish all elements of a claim by a preponderance of the evidence); Dresher, at 293 (observing that after a movant discharges its initial burden, summary judgment is appropriate if the nonmoving party does not respond, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Civ.R. 56, with specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists for trial).
{¶ 34} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' contention that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the city is unconvincing. Plaintiffs' first assignment of error is therefore overruled.
{¶ 35} Plaintiffs' second assignment of error asserts the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the school board. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint asserts the school board was negligent because the board and the school's administrators, faculty, or staff failed to provide "even nominal safety aids such as crossing guards, traffic assistance by police or other safety measures or supervision for students walking home."9 Plaintiffs further allege that the school board "had a duty to ensure that Keyonne Bush had a safe way to get home from school and had a duty to supervise the students and premises after school ended"10 and that the school board acted in a "wanton or reckless manner" toward him.11 The school board asserts the defense of political subdivision immunity pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2744.
{¶ 36} For purposes of R.C. Chapter 2744, a "political subdivision" includes a school district. Former R.C.
{¶ 37} According to former R.C.
{¶ 38} Because the school board is a political subdivision performing a governmental function and is generally immune from liability, we must determine whether any of the five exceptions to immunity listed in former R.C.
{¶ 39} Former R.C.
Subject to sections
* * *
(4) Except as otherwise provided in section
{¶ 40} Here, even construing the evidence in favor of plaintiffs and even assuming arguendo the school board was negligent, there is no evidence that Keyonne Bush was injured while on school premises.12
Absent any evidence that Keyonne Bush was injured on school premises, we conclude liability cannot attach to the school board under former R.C.
{¶ 41} Neither do we find any evidence to support a finding that division (B)(5) of former R.C.
{¶ 42} According to the record, at the time of the accident, the head school custodian was responsible for turning on and off the flashing school zone light sign.13 However, there is conflicting evidence whether the school's head custodian activated the flashing school zone light sign at the time of the accident.14 Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence concerning Beggrow's rate of speed at the time he struck Keyonne Bush.15
{¶ 43} Even assuming that through the actions of the school's head custodian the school board assumed a duty of care to alert passing motorists that students were present by activating a flashing school zone light sign,16 we do not find that division (B)(5) of former R.C.
{¶ 44} Pursuant to former R.C.
In addition to the circumstances described in divisions (B)(1) to (4) of this section, a political subdivision is liable for injury, death, or loss to person or property when liability is expressly imposed upon the political subdivision by a section of the Revised Code, including, but not limited to, sections
See, also, Ramey v. Mudd,
{¶ 45} Here, plaintiffs have not directed us to any statutes that expressly impose liability upon the school board for failure to activate a flashing school zone light sign. Indeed, our research reveals statutory authority that suggests liability does not attach for failure to have a flashing school zone light sign. See former R.C.
{¶ 46} Therefore, even construing the evidence in favor of plaintiffs, finding no statutory authority under the Ohio Revised Code that expressly imposes liability for failure to activate a flashing school zone light, we cannot conclude that any liability under former R.C.
{¶ 47} Furthermore, having concluded that, as a matter of law, the school board is immune from liability, the conflicting evidence concerning Beggrow's rate of speed at the time of the accident becomes irrelevant and immaterial with respect to the school board. Similarly, having previously concluded that, as a matter of law, the city is immune from liability, the conflicting evidence concerning Beggrow's rate of speed at the time of the accident is irrelevant and immaterial as to the city.
{¶ 48} In their appeal, plaintiffs also assert the trial court erred by failing to rely on Addis v. Howell (2000),
{¶ 49} In Addis, Cory Addis, a second grade student, was walking home from school when he was struck by a car. On the day that he was struck, Addis, who typically rode on a school bus, was walking home from school. Addis mistakenly believed that his mother was going to pick him up from school, and when she failed to appear at school, Addis set out for home on foot because the school bus had already departed. When Addis failed to arrive at home by bus, his mother drove to the school to pick him up. Addis's mother passed her son in the opposite direction as he walked along State Route 118. When Addis's mother saw her son and stopped to turn around, Addis darted across the road toward his mother's vehicle and was struck by an automobile.
{¶ 50} Thereafter, Addis's parents sued, inter alia, the school board, his second grade teacher, and the school principal, alleging that school board employees failed to provide Addis with supervision that would have prevented his injuries. The school board, Addis's second grade teacher, and the school principal claimed immunity pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2744. Both plaintiffs and defendants moved for summary judgment.
{¶ 51} The trial court awarded summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on their claims that the defendants breached a duty of care toward Cory Addis when they failed to supervise his movements. However, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained, the trial court denied plaintiffs' summary judgment motion as to their claim that defendants' breach proximately resulted in the accident from which Addis was injured. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on their immunity defense, finding that plaintiffs' claims for relief were precluded by R.C.
{¶ 52} On appeal, the Second District Court of Appeals determined, among other things, that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Addis's second grade teacher and the school principal because these defendants did not act in a reckless or wanton manner in failing to supervise Addis's movements.
{¶ 53} However, as to the school board, the Second District Court of Appeals found that the school board's conduct was not an exercise of judgment or discretion and, therefore, R.C.
* * * The breach resulted from the failure of the board's employees to supervise Cory's movements. Cory and other children who did not ride a school bus were simply permitted to fend for themselves, absent any plan or program to produce that result. The acts or omissions involved are not an exercise of discretion covered by R.C.
Id. at 60.
{¶ 54} We find the facts of Addis are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances under consideration here.
{¶ 55} In Estate of Ridley v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardationand Developmental Disabilities,
R.C. Chapter 2744 sets forth a three-tiered analysis to determine whether a political subdivision is immune from liability. First, R.C.
Id. at ¶ 26. (Footnotes omitted; emphasis added.) See, also, Sobiskiv. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Children and Family Serv., Cuyahoga App. No. 84086,
{¶ 56} In its analysis, the Addis court only construed R.C.
{¶ 57} In Addis, the Second District Court of Appeals stated that in its view R.C.
{¶ 58} Here, construing the evidence in favor of plaintiffs, there is evidence of some positive exercise of judgment by the school board that portrays a considered adoption of a particular course of conduct. In an affidavit, the director of transportation services for the Columbus school district averred that providing transportation for a student who lived within two miles of the student's school was discretionary and based upon resources and other factors.18 See, generally, former R.C.
{¶ 59} In the present case, it is undisputed that Keyonne Bush lived within two miles of school and, therefore, whether to provide Bush with transportation from school was based upon the school board's exercise of discretion. In Pope v. Trotwood-Madison City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.,
Montgomery App. No. 20072,
{¶ 60} Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, we conclude the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the school board. Plaintiffs' second assignment of error is therefore overruled.
{¶ 61} Finally, although we have concluded that, as a matter of law, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the city and school board, our decision should not be construed as condoning conditions or policies that endanger school-age children as they traverse on foot to and from school. The Supreme Court of Ohio has observed:
* * * "[c]hildren of tender years, and youthful persons generally, are entitled to a degree of care proportioned to their inability to foresee and avoid the perils that they may encounter * * *. The same discernment and foresight in discovering defects and dangers cannot be reasonably expected of them, that older and experienced persons habitually employ; and therefore, the greater precaution should be taken, where children are exposed to them." * * *
Di Gildo v. Caponi (1969),
{¶ 62} Nonetheless, "[i]n the absence of a constitutional concern * * * the judiciary's function is to interpret the law as written by the General Assembly. `"[T]he legislature is the final arbiter of public policy, unless its acts contravene the state or federal Constitutions."'"Beagle v. Walden (1997),
{¶ 63} Accordingly, based upon the issues before us and the law as written, and having overruled both of plaintiffs' assignments of error, we therefore affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
Brown, P.J., and Sadler, J., concur.