Douglas v. Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn.

Summary

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals reviewed the grant of summary judgment to a school board, school district, and teacher after a student was injured by a rocket launched during a science class project. The court upheld political-subdivision and employee immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744, concluding that the physical-defect exception did not apply and that immunity was alternatively restored under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5).

Holdings

1. The rocket and the alleged manner of conducting and supervising the rocket launch did not constitute a physical defect within or on the grounds or buildings of a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4). None of the statutory immunity exceptions applied to the school board.
2. Even if the physical-defect exception had removed the school board's immunity, immunity would have been restored under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) because the alleged injury resulted from discretionary decisions regarding the use of equipment, supplies, materials, and supervision, and there was no allegation or evidence of malicious purpose, bad faith, wanton conduct, or reckless conduct.
3. Bardos was immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) because his acts occurred within the course and scope of his employment and there was no allegation or evidence that he acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.
4. Douglas was not entitled to summary judgment based on strict liability or res ipsa loquitur because res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine permitting an inference of negligence, not a separate cause of action or independent theory of strict liability.

Questions Presented

1. Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment for the school board, school district, and teacher.
2. Whether the physical-defect exception to political-subdivision immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) applied to the rocket or the circumstances of the rocket launch.
3. Whether the school board's immunity was restored under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) because the alleged injury resulted from discretionary decisions concerning the use of equipment, materials, and supervision.
4. Whether Kirk Bardos was immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6).
5. Whether Douglas was entitled to summary judgment based on strict liability or res ipsa loquitur.

Disposition

affirmed