In Conley v. Wapakoneta City School District Board of Education, the Appellate Court granted a board of education and 8th grade baseball coach political subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 in a case where a baseball player on the team was hit in the face by an errant “hit stick” during a team practice.
Here, the board argued that it was entitled to political subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744. The baseball player argued that two exceptions to the general presumption of immunity applied: (1) when a political subdivision engages in proprietary functions instead of governmental functions – here, baseball practice; and (2) when an injury has occurred on school grounds due to a physical defect – here, the coach’s modifications to the “hit stick”. The baseball player further argued that despite the coach acting within the scope of his employment, he acted with a clear wanton and reckless disregard for player safety. The Court disagreed with the baseball player.
In support of its decision, the Court reasoned that none of the exceptions that the baseball player relied on applied because (1) all activities performed within a school are considered governmental functions under R.C. 2744.02(B)(2), and therefore the baseball practice was a governmental function; and (2) a physical defect under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) is defined as a defect of the structural integrity of a building, and the “hit stick” in this case was a moveable object that had no bearing on the building’s structure. Lastly, the Court ruled that the coach did not act with a wanton or reckless disregard when modifying the “hit stick” since he had used the “hit stick” many times and had no reason to believe that adding electrical tape to the handle would make the “hit stick” dangerous.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
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.