Burned in a Classroom: How Darke County Families Got Past School Immunity in Doe v. Greenville City Schools

Published July 15, 2021 · Ohio Appeals Courts

A high school science class is supposed to be the safest place to learn about fire. On December 9, 2019, in a classroom at Greenville High School in Darke County, a bottle of isopropyl alcohol caught fire and exploded during an experiment, and two students were hurt. Their families sued the Greenville City School District Board of Education, the teacher, and the principal, alleging that the room had no fire extinguisher or other proper safety equipment and that no adequate safety protocols were in place.

The school's first response was the one families almost always hear: we are immune. On June 25, 2021, the Second District Court of Appeals, which hears appeals from Montgomery, Greene, Miami, Clark, Darke, and Champaign Counties, disagreed. Its decision in Doe v. Greenville City Schools, 2021-Ohio-2127, is a useful local roadmap for any parent whose child is hurt at a public school.

Why schools start out immune

Ohio's Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, R.C. Chapter 2744, begins with a broad shield. Under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), a political subdivision, which includes a public school district, is generally not liable for injury caused in connection with its governmental functions. Running a school is a governmental function.

That shield has holes, and the statute lists them in R.C. 2744.02(B). Courts walk through three steps: is the entity immune to begin with, does one of the exceptions apply, and if so, can the entity restore its immunity through one of the defenses in R.C. 2744.03. I walked through how this works for buses, playgrounds, and supervision in an earlier post on school-related injuries.

Employees are treated separately. A teacher or principal is personally immune unless, among other things, his or her acts or omissions were "with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner," under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b).

The claim against the school board: a missing extinguisher as a "physical defect"

The families relied on the exception in R.C. 2744.02(B)(4). It makes a political subdivision liable for injury caused by employee negligence that occurs in or on the grounds of a government building and is "due to physical defects" there.

The school board argued that the absence of safety equipment can never be a physical defect. Something that is missing, the argument goes, is not a defect in the building. Ohio's appellate districts have split on this question, and the Second District had not squarely decided it before.

The court looked to the Supreme Court of Ohio's 2009 decision in Moore v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-1250. In Moore, two children died in a fire in a public-housing apartment after the housing authority removed the only working smoke detector and did not replace it. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court to decide whether the absence of a required smoke detector was a physical defect. As the Second District reasoned, there would have been no point in sending it back if the answer were "no" as a matter of law.

So the Second District held that the absence of fire-safety equipment could constitute a physical defect if the equipment was legally or regulatorily required. The court was careful to say it was not deciding that a missing extinguisher is always a physical defect, only that it can be, and that the trial court must decide the question once the record shows what equipment was required and what was actually in the room.

The claims against the teacher and principal: recklessness is a fact question

The teacher and principal argued that the complaint did not allege specific facts showing that either of them personally acted recklessly. The court acknowledged that the complaint was not detailed, but held it was enough, "even if minimally," to put them on notice of the claims.

Two points in the court's reasoning matter for families:

• No heightened pleading in immunity cases. Quoting another appellate decision, the court noted that while some claims require particular facts up front, "the plaintiff in a sovereign immunity case does not."
• The danger was obvious. Isopropyl alcohol is flammable, and the court observed that in a science experiment, "the risk that a flammable liquid might catch fire in the presence of an open flame or other source of intense heat should be obvious." Whether the staff consciously disregarded that risk is a question of fact, not something to be decided on a motion to dismiss.

The court also refused to let the school board use its discretion defenses in R.C. 2744.03(A)(3) and (A)(5) to end the case at the outset. Those defenses depend on facts about each employee's job duties and judgment that are not in a complaint, and the (A)(5) defense does not apply at all if the discretion was exercised in a wanton or reckless manner, which is exactly what the families allege. The only part of the case trimmed on appeal was a set of placeholder claims against ten unnamed employees.

What the decision does and does not decide

It is important to be precise. Doe is a ruling on a motion to dismiss. No court has found that the school, the teacher, or the principal did anything wrong. The appeals court held only that the families' allegations, taken as true, are enough to keep the case going into discovery, where they can learn what safety equipment the law required, what was in the room, and what the staff knew. The case now returns to the Darke County Common Pleas Court.

That is still a significant step. In immunity cases, the government's first move is usually a motion to end the case before any evidence is exchanged. Getting past that motion means the families can obtain the records, inspection reports, and testimony that will determine whether the claim succeeds.

What this means for you

If your child is hurt at a public school in the Miami Valley, the immunity statute is not the end of the conversation. Doe is binding authority in our appellate district, and it supports several practical points:

• Ask what safety equipment was required, and what was there. Fire codes, lab-safety rules, and state or district policies can turn a missing extinguisher, eyewash station, or guard into evidence of a physical defect.
• Name the people, not just the district. Teachers and administrators lose their personal immunity if they acted recklessly, and those claims are evaluated separately from the district's.
• Move fast on evidence. Room inventories, inspection reports, incident reports, emails, and witness memories are the proof in these cases. Our guide chapter on gathering evidence while it still exists explains why the first weeks matter.
• Watch the deadline. Claims against school districts carry their own two-year statute and their own procedural traps. Why You Should Talk to a Lawyer Early explains why that two years is shorter than it sounds.

Our claims against the government practice handles injury cases against school districts, cities, and counties across Montgomery, Greene, Warren, Miami, and Darke Counties, alongside the broader personal injury work we do every day.