Hamrick v. Bryan City School Dist.Hamrick v. Bryan City School Dist.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: May 27, 2011
* * * * *
Daniel R. Michel, for appellants.
Teresa L. Grigsby and Joan Szuberla, for appellees.
* * * * *
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant appeals an award of summary judgment issued by the Williams County Court of Common Pleas to a school district and its employee in a personal injury suit. For the reasons that follow, we аffirm.
{¶ 2} Appellee Bryan City School District maintains a multi-bay school bus garage on its property in Bryan, Ohio. The garage is used for routine maintenance and
{¶ 3} On December 18, 2007, school officials complained to the Bryan Municipal Utilities Department about low water pressure in the bus garage. Utilities dispatched an employeе, but he could not investigate because the water meter pit was covered with snow. This utilities worker eventually radioed another utilities worker, appellant Roger L. Hamrick1, advised him of the problem and asked him to check the metеr pit to see if there was something wrong there.
{¶ 4} Appellant went to the bus garage mid-afternoon. When he removed the snow and opened the meter pit, he discovered that the shutoff valve to the bus garage was closed half-way. Appellant opened the valve all the way and went to the garage to determine whether this fix had been successful.
{¶ 5} According to appellant, he went to the garage door and knocked. When no one responded, he оpened the unlocked door and called out “light and water.” Appellant then took “a couple” of steps into the garage. This is the last thing he remembers.
{¶ 6} A short time later, a bus driver, returning from her afternoon run, heard a noise coming frоm a service pit near the office of the bus garage. When she investigated, the bus driver found appellant at the bottom of the pit, seriously injured.
{¶ 7} On May 18, 2009, appellant and his wife sued appellee school, alleging that its negligencе in allowing an unmarked service pit on its premises was the proximate
{¶ 8} Following disсovery, appellees moved for summary judgment on several grounds: the pit into which appellant fell was open and obvious as a matter of law, appellant could not show proximate cause between appellees’ action and his injury, and the school and its employee were entitled to governmental immunity. The trial court rejected the first two grounds for judgment, but concluded that appellees were entitled to immunity from suit pursuant to
{¶ 9} “The trial court failed to apply basic rules of statutory construction, аnd thus erred in granting summary judgment to Appellees Bryan City School District and Pete Beucler.”
{¶ 10} Appellees cross-appeal, setting forth the following two assignments of error:
{¶ 11} “Cross Assignment of Error 1: The Trial Court erred in failing to find the hazard to be opеn and obvious as a matter of law and awarding summary judgment on that basis.
{¶ 13} On review, appellate courts employ the same standard for summary judgment as trial courts. Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts. (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 127, 129. The motion may be granted only when it is demonstrated:
{¶ 14} “* * * (1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and thаt conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, who is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor.” Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 67,
{¶ 15} A “material” fact is one which would affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable substantive law. Russell v. Interim Personnel, Inc. (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 301, 304; Needham v. Provident Bank (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 817, 826, citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986), 477 U.S. 242, 248.
{¶ 16} The legislature has classified the functions of political subdivisions as “governmental” or “proprietary.” As a general rule, subject to exceptions, political subdivisions are, “* * * not liable in damages in a civil aсtion for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a governmental or proprietаry
{¶ 17} An exception to the rule of general immunity occurs when there is personal injury, death or damage to property caused by the negligence of a political subdivision employee, “* * * that occurs within or on the grounds of, and is duе to physical defects within or on the grounds of, buildings that are used in connection with the performance of a governmental function, including, but not limited to, office buildings and courthouses * * *.”
{¶ 18} In the trial court and here, appellee school district maintains that there was no “physical defect” in the maintenance pit in the bus garage. Its purpose is to pеrmit mechanics to get beneath school busses to perform maintenance. In that regard, appellee school insists, the pit operated as it was intended. Moreover, appellee school argued, the pit was open and obvious and there is no evidence its use was malicious, in bad faith, wanton or reckless.
{¶ 19} The trial court concluded that there was no “physical defect” in the maintenance pit and that, as a result, the
Constitutionality of R.C. 2744.02(B)(4)
{¶ 20} Appellant, relying on Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Ed., 97 Ohio St.3d 451, 2002-Ohio-6718, and this court‘s Grine v. Sylvania City Schools Bd. of Ed., 6th Dist. No. L-06-1314, 2008-Ohio-1562, insists that the phrase “due to physical defects within or on the grounds” found in
{¶ 21} Hubbard was decided in 2002 and noted the language at issue had been part of two prior court decisions that declared unconstitutional the acts in which the language was included. Hubbard, 2002-Ohio-6718, ¶ 16. Similarly, Grine applied the statute to events antecedent to the April 9, 2003 effective date of the amendment that inserted the language in the present version of
Statutory Construction
{¶ 23} Appellant insists that the trial court‘s construction of
{¶ 24} The purpose of statutory cоnstruction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Proctor v. Kardassilaris, 115 Ohio St.3d 71, 2007-Ohio-4838, ¶ 12. In doing so, we look first to the language of the statute. If its meaning is clear and unambiguous, there is nothing left to do but apply its terms as written. Id. “Words and phrases shall be
{¶ 25} Contextually, as appellee properly points out,
{¶ 26} As we have already noted, a public school district is a political subdivision performing a governmental activity. Operating and maintaining school busses is reasonably a part of that activity. Consequently, the bus garage in which appellant was injured was used in connection with a governmental activity. For purposes of summary judgment, we presume that appellant‘s injuries were caused by employee negligence.
{¶ 27} The phrase “physical defect” is not statutorily defined, neither has appellant brought to our attention authority demonstrating that the phrase has acquired any technical meaning. As a result, we must look to common usage of the words in the context of the statute as a whole to determine its meaning.
{¶ 29} Appellant has presented no evidence that there was any discernable imperfection that diminished the utility of either the bus garage or the service pit. There is nothing of record to suggest that either did not perform as intended or was less useful than designed. Consequently, the trial court properly concluded that appellee school district was entitled to statutory governmental immunity in this instance. Since the immunities that attach to a political subdivision also encompass its employees,
{¶ 30} Since we have affirmed the trial court‘s judgment granting summary judgment to appellees, thе assignments of error in their cross-appeal are moot.
{¶ 31} On consideration, the judgment of the William County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. It is ordered that appellants pay the court costs of this appeal pursuant to
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Peter M. Handwork, J. _______________________________ JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________ JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.