Doe v. Greenville City Schs.

• Decision Date: 28 December 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-0980
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 4618
• Parties: Doe et al., Appellees, v. Greenville City Schools et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

2022-Ohio-4618

Doe et al., Appellees,
v.
Greenville City Schools et al., Appellants.

No. 2021-0980

Supreme Court of Ohio

December 28, 2022

Submitted June 16, 2022

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Darke County, No. 2020-CA-4, 2021-Ohio-2127.

Wright & Schulte, L.L.C., Michael L. Wright, Robert L. Gresham, and Kesha Q. Brooks, for appellees.

Subashi, Wildermuth & Justice, Brian L. Wildermuth, and Tabitha Justice, for appellants.

JUDGMENT

STEWART, J.

{¶ 1} In this case, this court is asked to decide whether the absence of a fire extinguisher or other safety equipment within a building of a political subdivision could be a physical defect such that an exception to immunity exists under R.C.

1

2744.02(B)(4). We conclude that it could, and this court affirms the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶ 2} In May 2020, plaintiffs-appellees, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and a parent of each child (collectively, "the students"), filed a complaint against defendants-appellants, Greenville City Schools; Greenville City School District Board of Education; Stan Hughes, principal of the high school; and Roy Defrain, a science teacher at the high school (collectively, "Greenville"),^[1] alleging that Greenville negligently caused their injuries when they suffered severe burns in December 2019 after a bottle of isopropyl alcohol caught fire and exploded in a science class. The students alleged in part that Greenville failed to provide proper safety equipment, "especially, but not limited to, a fire extinguisher inside the classroom," failed to ensure that there were proper safety features and protocols in place, failed to properly supervise and protect them, and to the extent that Greenville exercised discretion, Greenville did so "maliciously, in bad faith and in a reckless and wanton manner."

{¶ 3} Greenville moved to dismiss, arguing that it was immune from liability under R.C. Chapter 2744 and that no exception to immunity applied. Specifically, Greenville contended that the R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) exception, which may apply when an injury is due to physical defects within or on the grounds of a building used for a governmental function, did not apply because the students failed to identify a physical defect in the science classroom. Greenville further argued that "an alleged absence of safety features or measures is not a 'physical defect.' "

2

{¶ 4} The trial court denied Greenville's motion to dismiss, and Greenville appealed to the Second District. Under R.C. 2744.02(C), "[a]n order that denies a political subdivision or an employee of a political subdivision the benefit of an alleged immunity from liability as provided in [R.C. Chapter 2744] or any other provision of the law is a final order."

{¶ 5} The Second District affirmed the trial court's denial of Greenville's motion to dismiss. 2021-Ohio-2127, 174 N.E.3d 917, ¶ 27. The appellate court noted, as did the trial court, that there was a split between appellate districts concerning the application of R.C. 2744.02(B)(4). Id. at ¶ 25. But the court of appeals agreed with the trial court that based on Moore v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-1250, 905 N.E.2d 606, the allegations in the students' complaint, if taken as true, set forth a claim upon which relief could be granted. See id. at ¶ 27, 34.

{¶ 6} Greenville appealed to this court.^[2] This court accepted jurisdiction of their second proposition of law: "The alleged absence of a device or piece of safety equipment that would not be considered a 'fixture' under Ohio law cannot constitute a 'physical defect' of a classroom under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4)." See 165 Ohio St.3d 1531, 2022-Ohio-280, 180 N.E.3d 1154.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Civ.R. 8 and 12(B)(6)

{¶ 7} Ohio is a notice-pleading state. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Horn, 142 Ohio St.3d 416, 2015-Ohio-1484, 31 N.E.3d 637, ¶ 13. This means that outside of a few specific circumstances, such as claims involving fraud or mistake, see

3

Civ.R. 9(B), a party will not be expected to plead a claim with particularity. Rather, "a short and plain statement of the claim," Civ.R. 8(A), will typically do.

{¶ 8} A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted tests the sufficiency of a complaint. State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 548, 605 N.E.2d 378 (1992). In order for a trial court to dismiss a complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), it "must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling [her] to recovery." O 'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975), syllabus, following Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); see also LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St.3d 323, 2007-Ohio-3608, 872 N.E.2d 254, ¶ 14. Reviewing courts must accept the material allegations in the complaint as true, Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St.3d 463, 2004-Ohio-5717, 816 N.E.2d 1061, ¶ 11, and construe the allegations and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party, Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 650 N.E.2d 863 (1995).

B. Political-Subdivision Immunity

{¶ 9} "The Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, as codified in R.C. Chapter 2744, sets forth a three-tiered analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability." Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24, 28, 697 N.E.2d 610 (1998) (lead opinion), abrogated by M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 134 Ohio St.3d 65, 2012-Ohio-5336, 979 N.E.2d 1261. First, R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) generally provides that political subdivisions and their employees are immune from liability related to their governmental functions. R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) and 2744.03(A)(6). In most cases, the broad immunity of R.C. Chapter 2744 provides political subdivisions a complete defense to a negligence cause of action. Turner v. Cent. Local School Dist., 85 Ohio St.3d 95, 98, 706 N.E.2d 1261 (1999).

4

{¶ 10} That immunity, however, is not absolute. Hill v. Urbana, 79 Ohio St.3d 130, 679 N.E.2d 1109 (1997). Under the second tier of the analysis, courts must decide whether any exceptions to immunity apply under R.C. 2744.02(B). Cater at 28 (lead opinion), abrogated by M.H.

{¶ 11} And finally, if an exception applies, immunity can be reinstated under the third tier of the analysis "if the political subdivision can successfully argue that one of the defenses contained in R.C. 2744.03 applies." Id.

C. Physical Defect

{¶ 12} There is no question in this case that the school district is a political subdivision for purposes of R.C. Chapter 2744, see R.C. 2744.01(F), and that the alleged harm occurred in connection with a governmental function, see R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(c). The question presented in this case is whether an exception to immunity applies under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4), which states that "political subdivisions are liable for injury * * * that is caused by the negligence of their employees and that occurs within or on the grounds of, and is due to physical defects within or on the grounds of, buildings that are used in connection with the performance of a governmental function." Specifically, we must consider whether the absence of a fire extinguisher or other safety equipment is a physical defect within the meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(4).

{¶ 13} The trial court and appellate court relied on this court's decision in Moore, 121 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-1250, 905 N.E.2d 606, to find that the students pleaded sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss. Moore involved the deaths of two children caused by a fire in an apartment that was owned by the Lorain Metropolitan Housing Authority ("LMHA"). The mother filed an action against LMHA, claiming that because it had removed the apartment's only working smoke detector and negligently failed to replace it, the father of the children, who was home and sleeping at the time of the fire, did not wake in time to...