Injured in a Public Building? The Greenville Schools Decision Opens the Door Past Government Immunity

Published February 9, 2023 · Ohio Supreme Court

Two teenage girls went to science class at Greenville High School in December 2019 and left with severe burns after a bottle of isopropyl alcohol caught fire and exploded. Their families sued, alleging, among other things, that the classroom had no fire extinguisher. The school district answered that it was immune, and that a missing fire extinguisher is not the kind of "defect" Ohio law lets anyone sue over.

On December 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio disagreed. Doe v. Greenville City Schools, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4618, is a Darke County case that came up through the Second District Court of Appeals in Dayton, and it matters to anyone hurt inside a school, courthouse, city office, recreation building, or other public facility.

The immunity wall, and the doors in it

Ohio's Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, R.C. Chapter 2744, starts from a rule that frustrates many injured people: cities, counties, townships, and school districts are generally not liable for injuries connected with their functions. R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) states that general immunity.

The statute then lists exceptions in R.C. 2744.02(B). They cover negligent driving by government employees, negligent performance of "proprietary" (business-like) functions, failure to keep public roads in repair, and, most important for this case, injuries in public buildings. Under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4), a political subdivision is liable for injury caused by its employees' negligence that occurs within or on the grounds of a government building and is "due to physical defects" there. The exception expressly includes office buildings and courthouses and excludes jails and other detention facilities.

Even when an exception applies, the government can still try to restore immunity through the defenses in R.C. 2744.03. So the analysis is three steps: general immunity, then an exception, then any defense.

What the school district argued

Greenville moved to dismiss the case at the very start, before any evidence was gathered. Its argument was straightforward: a "physical defect" means something broken. A cracked step, a loose railing, or a malfunctioning machine might qualify. But the mere absence of safety equipment, the district said, is not a defect in the building at all.

The students responded that the defect was the classroom itself: a lab-style room where chemicals were used, without proper safety equipment and safety protocols.

The trial court refused to dismiss the case, and the Second District affirmed. We wrote about that appeals court decision in 2021. The district then took the case to the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court decided

The Supreme Court affirmed. Justice Melody Stewart announced the court's judgment in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor and Justice Jennifer Brunner; Justice Patrick Fischer agreed with the result without joining the reasoning, and three justices dissented.

The lead opinion noted that "physical defect" is not defined in the statute and that Ohio appellate courts had split on whether missing safety features count. Some courts had said yes: a missing lawn-mower discharge chute, an orchestra pit without reflective tape or lights, a lifeguard stand that did not let the guard see a drowning swimmer. Others had said no. The lead opinion also pointed to the Supreme Court's own 2009 decision involving a public housing authority that removed an apartment's only working smoke detector; the Court had sent that case back to decide whether the missing detector was a physical defect, which it would not have done if the answer were automatically no.

Resolving the split, the lead opinion agreed with the courts that have held that the lack of safety equipment or other safety features could amount to a physical defect. Its conclusion: the absence of a fire extinguisher or other safety equipment in a science classroom "could be a physical defect such that an exception to immunity could exist." Because the students alleged that their injuries were caused both by the teacher's negligent supervision and by the missing safety equipment, they stated a claim, and the case goes forward.

What the decision does and does not mean

Be clear about the stage of this case. The Supreme Court decided only that the families' complaint is enough to get past a motion to dismiss. The families still have to prove negligence, prove the classroom's condition was a physical defect that caused their injuries, and meet any defense the district raises. Nothing about the outcome of the case has been decided.

It is also worth noting that only three justices joined the lead opinion's reasoning, so future cases may test how far it reaches. But the practical effect is significant. The Second District, which hears appeals from Montgomery, Greene, Miami, Darke, Clark, and Champaign counties, had already read the statute this way, and the Supreme Court has now affirmed that judgment.

Why this matters for injuries on public property

Before Doe, government defendants could argue that unless something physically broke, no exception applied. That argument is now much weaker. Situations worth a closer look include:

• Schools and labs without required fire extinguishers, eyewash stations, ventilation, or guards on shop machines.
• Public buildings where handrails, lighting, slip-resistant surfaces, or warning devices were never installed or were removed.
• Recreation centers and pools missing lifeguard equipment, depth markings, or barriers.
• Smoke detectors and alarms missing from public housing or other government-owned buildings.

Each case still requires proof that an employee was negligent and that the missing equipment was a physical defect that caused the injury. That proof comes from inspection records, maintenance logs, purchase orders, safety policies, and photographs taken before anything is changed. Our guide chapter on gathering evidence while it still exists explains why the first weeks matter so much.

Last month the Supreme Court also held, in Smathers v. Glass, that judges cannot weigh disputed evidence to grant government employees immunity before trial. We covered that decision in our post on reckless government employees. Taken together, the two decisions show a Court willing to keep claims against public bodies and employees alive long enough for the facts to be developed.

What this means for you

If you or your child was hurt in a school, a government office, or another public building, "the government is immune" is the beginning of the analysis, not the end. Missing safety equipment, not just broken equipment, can open the R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) exception. Claims against political subdivisions must generally be filed within two years, as our guide to deadlines and the timeline of an Ohio injury case explains, and the evidence needed to prove a building defect can disappear much sooner. Read more on our pages about claims against the government in Ohio and premises liability.