COLUMBUS, Ohio (Legal Newsline) - Resolving a question that has divided Ohio courts for years, the state Supreme Court ruled that a missing fire extinguisher in a school laboratory is a “physical defect” even if it wasn’t legally required, allowing students burned by an exploding bottle of alcohol to sue their school district.
The decision drew a dissent from three judges including the Chief Justice, who said a state law limiting the tort liability of government entities prohibits lawsuits over missing safety equipment.
Ohio law broadly exempts government entities from lawsuits over the negligence of their employees unless an injury was caused by “physical defects” in a building or property. In May 2020 students identified as Jane Doe 1 and 2 were badly burned after a bottle of isopropyl alcohol caught fire in a Greenville High School lab.
The students and their parents sued the Greenville City School District for failing to provide proper supervision and safety equipment. The school district moved to dismiss the case, citing Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2744, which broadly protects political subdivisions against negligence lawsuits in order to preserve the ability of government employees to exercise judgment in the performance of their work.
The trial court rejected the school district’s motion as did the Second District Court of Appeals. They cited a 2008 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court that didn’t explicitly rule out liability for missing smoke detectors in a public housing apartment. Faced with the question again, the Supreme Court this time held that missing fire safety equipment can be a “physical defect” for purposes of defeating the bar on government negligence suits.
Justice Melody J. Stewart wrote for the majority, noting a history of conflicting court decisions on what constitutes a physical defect. Ohio courts have held a lawnmower without a discharge chute, a poorly designed school kitchen, deteriorated safety netting around a discus-throwing pit and a lifeguard tower that was too short for the guard to see a drowning victim were “physical defects,” although one court rejected a similar claim about a diving platform in a flooded quarry.
“On review of the cases addressing the issue, we agree with the courts that have held that the lack of safety equipment or other safety features could amount to a physical defect,” the majority concluded.
Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy dissented, joined by Justices Patrick DeWine and Michael Donnelly. She said the law “does not create an exception for a school district’s failure to have a fire extinguisher in a science classroom.” The students sued for negligent supervision, he wrote, which is “plainly not based on a physical defect – supervision is not a material or tangible thing.”