In the case of Jacobs v. Village of Oakwood, 2016-Ohio-5327, a state appellate court found that a village could be liable for using a residential grade swing on a municipal playground.
The dispute in this case began when a 30-year old adult fell after the grommet on his swing broke while swinging on a municipal playground with his niece.
While the village routinely inspected the swing, a warning specifically stated that it was intended for residential and children use only. As a result, the central issue before the state appellate court was whether the “installation of a residential-grade swing, fit for use by one child only on the playground” constituted a defect, which would be an exception to the village’s immunity. Jacobs at ¶ 28.
The state appellate court concluded that the case should proceed to trial as some evidence existed that the non-residential use of the swing “caused the equipment to not operate as intended” due to a physical defect. Jacobs at ¶ 28.
This case provides a useful contrast with our prior blog post on May 18, 2016, about an easily accessible classroom coffee pot. To read that blog post, please click here. In the coffee pot case, the state appellate court found that an accessible pot of hot coffee does not constitute a defect because “[t]here is nothing in the record to suggest that anything in the kitchen did not perform as intended or was less useful than designed.” Moss v. Lorain Bd. of Mental Retardation, 2016-Ohio-169, ¶ 14.
What can we learn from the different rulings in these two cases? We learn that courts will generally find that political subdivisions are immune from injuries caused by objects unless the object did not perform as intended. In this swing set case (Jacobs v. Village of Oakwood), the plaintiff could show that using a swing intended for residential purposes only could prevent the swing from operating as intended. In contrast, the student in coffee pot case (Moss v. Lorain Bd. of Mental Retardation) could not demonstrate that the coffee did not operate as intended.
To read the Jacobs v. Village of Oakwood case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.