Leasure v. Adena Local School Dist.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » 4th District Court of Appeals » 2012 » Leasure v. Adena Local School Dist.

State: Ohio

Court: Ohio Southern District Court

Docket No: 2012-Ohio-3071

Case Date: 06/28/2012

Plaintiff: Leasure

Defendant: Adena Local School Dist.

Preview:[Cite as Leasure v. Adena Local School Dist., 2012-Ohio-3071.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY

HEIDI LEASURE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ADENA LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

: : : Case No. 11CA3249

:

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendants-Appellants.

:

_________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS: Richard W. Ross and Mark A. Weiker, Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., L.P.A., 1650 Lake Shore Drive, Suite 285, Columbus, Ohio 43204-4894 James S. Savage, McFadden, Winner, Savage & Segerman, L.L.P., 175 South Third Street, Suite 350, Columbus, Ohio 43215-5188

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES:

CIVIL CASE FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT DATE JOURNALIZED: 6-28-12 ABELE, P.J. This is an appeal from a Ross County Common Pleas Court denial of summary judgment to Adena Local School District Board of Education, defendant below and appellant herein. The trial court determined that appellant was not immune from liability under R.C. Chapter 2744 for the negligence claims of Heidi J. Leasure and Earl A. Leasure, III, plaintiffs below and appellees herein, and that the open and obvious doctrine did not bar appellees' negligence claims. Appellant assigns the following errors for review: FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

ROSS, 11CA3249

2

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS NOT IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY UNDER R.C. 2744.02." SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DECLINING TO APPLY THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DOCTRINE." On September 17, 2007, Heidi sustained an injury when she fell on the school gymnasium bleachers. Before her fall, Heidi ascended the bleachers without incident. However, as she descended the bleachers with her young child in her arms, she fell near the bottom step. Appellees filed a complaint against appellant and alleged that appellant negligently configured, installed, or maintained the bleachers and negligently failed to warn of the dangerous condition. Appellees sought damages for Heidi's injuries and Earl's loss of consortium. Appellees further asserted products liability claims against several John Does. Appellant subsequently requested summary judgment and argued that it is immune from liability under R.C. Chapter 2744. Appellant contended that (1) none of the R.C. 2744.02(B) exceptions removed its immunity, (2) the only potentially applicable exception, R.C. 2744.02(B)(4), did not remove its immunity because the bleachers did not have a physical defect, and (3) even if R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) removed its immunity, R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) re-instates its immunity. Appellant further asserted that the open and obvious doctrine barred appellees' negligence claim. To support its motion, appellant submitted the school's maintenance technician's affidavit. He stated that on the date of Heidi's injury, "the bleachers were in excellent condition, both mechanically and physically, with no defects or broken parts." He further stated that no one had reported "any malfunction, breakdown or defect in the bleachers or their operation."

ROSS, 11CA3249 In their memorandum in opposition to appellant's summary judgment motion, appellees

3

asserted that (1) the failure to properly extend the bleachers resulted in a physical defect, and (2) the R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) discretionary defense did not apply to appellant's set up of the bleachers. Appellees also disputed appellant's argument that the open and obvious doctrine barred their negligence claims. In her deposition, Heidi testified that she had been to the school gym more than a dozen times before her accident to watch her nieces' volleyball games and that on the date of her injury, the bleachers did not look any different than they had in the past. Heidi testified that before she fell, she was not aware that the bleachers had not been fully extended. She explained that she fell while walking down the bleachers with her child in her arms. Heidi stated that she believes her foot became stuck on the steps. After she fell, Heidi observed that the bleachers had not been fully extended (and thus locked into the intended position). When questioned where her foot

became caught, she stated that she did not know, but it was "[s]omewhere in the step." She claimed that the step was not misaligned, but was "short." The trial court denied appellant's summary judgment motion and determined that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether appellant is entitled to R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) immunity. The court concluded that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether (1) the condition of the bleachers constituted a physical defect, and (2) the open and obvious doctrine barred appellees' negligence claim. This appeal followed. I In its first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by determining that it is not entitled to immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744. In particular, appellant asserts that the trial court improperly determined that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the

ROSS, 11CA3249 condition of the bleachers constitutes a physical defect under the R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) exception.

4

A STANDARD OF REVIEW Appellate courts conduct a de novo review of trial court summary judgment decisions. E.g., Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). Accordingly, an appellate court must independently review the record to determine if summary judgment is appropriate and need not defer to the trial court's decision. E.g., Brown v. Scioto Bd. of Commrs., 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711, 622 N.E.2d 1153 (1993); Morehead v. Conley, 75 Ohio App.3d 409, 411

Download 11ca3249.pdf