 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bilfield v. Orange Board Of Education12/11/1997
Novak v. Reis (Dec. 30, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 59276, unreported; cf., Ross v. Board of Education of Solon City School District, supra.
Appellee argued in its brief in support of its motion for summary judgment that the decision to place a chain link fence on the playfield fell within the immunity granted by R.C 2744.03(A)(5). That section states:
S2744.03 Defenses or immunities of subdivision and employee.
(A) In a civil action brought against a political subdivision or an employee of a political subdivision to recover damages for injury , death, or loss to persons or property allegedly caused by any act or omission in connection with a governmental or propietary function, the following defenses or immunities may be asserted to establish non-liability:
(5) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the injury , death, or loss to persons or property resulted from the exercise of judgment or discretion in determining whether to acquire, or how to use, equipment, supplies, materials, personnel, facilities, and other resources, unless the judgment or discretion was exercised with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.
The decision to allocate limited resources toward installing a fence as a backstop for children playing ball on its playfield brings appellee's action squarely within R.C. 2744.03(A)(5). Balazs v. Kirtland Board of Education (Mar. 30, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67263, unreported; Mackulin v. Lakewood Board of Education (Mar. 11, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 61808, unreported; see, also, Adams v. Willoughby (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 367.
Moreover, although R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) requires political subdivisions to keep public grounds in repair, it remains subject to the specific immunity granted by R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(u) and R.C. 2744.03(A)(5). Horwitz v. The City of Cleveland (Mar. 16, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67140, unreported; Stinehelfer v. Solon City Schools (Feb. 25, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 64097, unreported. The placement of a fence upon the playfield certainly may be considered to be an allocation of resources to facilitate the purpose of the play field. Koch v. Avon Bd. of Edn. (1989), 64 Ohio App.3d 78.
This court must adhere to legislative enactments and to precedent as set by the Ohio Supreme Court and its own decisions. For this reason, appellants' reliance on authority from other appellate jurisdictions in Ohio is not persuasive. See, e.g., Wilson v. Stark Cuy. Dept. of Human Serv. supra; Nagorski v. Valley View, supra; cf., Hallett v. Stow Board of Education (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 309.
Since the evidence submitted to the trial court demonstrated Brandon's injury did not result from the breach of any duty owed by appellee to him, appellee was immune from liability pursuant to R.C. 2774.01(C)(2)(u) and 2744.03(A)(5). Therefore, no genuine issues of material fact remained in this case and summary judgment was properly granted for appellee.
Accordingly, appellants' assignments of error are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
TIMOTHY McMONAGLE, P.J., AND LEO SPELLACY, J., CONCUR.
JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|