Elston v. Howland Local Schools (2007) 113 Ohio St. 3d 314
In Elston v. Howland Local Schools a fifteen year-old baseball player was injured during batting practice in the school gymnasium. The player’s parents sued the school district claiming that through the actions of the baseball coach, the school district breached its duty of care to the baseball player by not properly using a protective netting during batting practice and failing to supervise the use of the batting cage. The school district claimed it was immune from liability under Ohio’s political subdivision immunity statutes. Ohio R.C. § 2744.01 et. seq.
Under Ohio Law, political subdivision immunity is subject to a “three-tiered analysis.” The first tier provides a general grant of immunity to a political subdivision or an employee of a political subdivision. The second tier provides exceptions to immunity, which in Elston included the negligence of the political subdivision’s employees within or on the grounds of buildings that are used in connection with the performance of a governmental function. The third tier then provides immunity defenses for the political subdivision. In Elston, the defense at issue provided that the political subdivision was immune when exercising judgment or discretion in determining how to use equipment, supplies, materials, personnel, facilities, unless the judgment was exercised with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. Ohio R.C. § 2744.03(A)(5).
The baseball player and his family argued that the “discretionary” acts referred to in the immunity statute only applied to the acts of the political subdivision and not its employees because the statute does not contain any reference to the term “employees.”
The Appellate Court agreed with the baseball player and found that a plain reading of the statute establishes that immunity is extended only to the acts of a political subdivision, not to the acts of its employees, or in this case the baseball coach.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s decision referencing well established Ohio case law that a political subdivision acts through its employees. The Court further held that teachers and coaches, as employees of a political subdivision, have wide discretion to determine what level of supervision is necessary to ensure the safety of the children in their care.
In Elston the baseball coach was providing instruction regarding the use of the safety netting and game-day preparations. The Court correctly determined that this represents the use of his judgment and discretion in the use of equipment and facilities in connection with his position as coach of the baseball team and employee of the school district. The school district was therefore held to be immune for the discretionary acts of its employee, and the Ohio Supreme Court upheld established Ohio law that a political subdivision only acts through the actions of its employees.
As a result of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Elston, Ohio law is now clear that a political subdivision is immune from liability when an employee is exercising their judgment or discretion. This immunity, however, still does not apply when the judgment of the employee is exercised with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.
If you have further questions regarding political subdivision immunity and the actions of employees of a political subdivision, please feel free to contact one of our Government Public Entity Practice Group members to discuss.