The Ohio Supreme Court ruled last week in M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5336, that a city is not immune from liability for injuries suffered by a patron at an indoor municipal swimming pool. In a 7-0 decision, the Court applied an exception to immunity for negligent acts at indoor pools that had previously not been enforced against political subdivisions. The effect of this unanimous decision will likely mean political subdivisions will be exposed to more liability for injuries at indoor or outdoor municipal swimming pools.
In M.H., a minor injured his knee while using a diving board at an indoor swimming pool operated by the City of Cuyahoga Falls. A parent of M.H. alleged the city negligently maintained the diving board.
Historically, political subdivisions have been entitled to limited liability for the operation of a municipal swimming pool. In 1998, the Ohio Supreme Court in Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24, 697 N.E.2d 610 (1998) held that the exception to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) “for injuries caused by the negligence of their employees that occurred within or on the grounds of . . . buildings that are used in connection with the performance of a governmental function” was not applicable to indoor swimming pools. Id. at 31. Justice Sweeney in Cater reasoned that “unlike a courthouse or office building where government business is conducted, a city recreation center houses recreational activities.” Id. The Court in Cater also acknowledged that it would be unfair to apply the exception to immunity to indoor swimming pools because they are housed in a government building but “there would be no liability if the injury occurred at an outdoor municipal swimming pool” since the injury did not occur in a building. Id. at 31-32.
Uncompelled by the reasoning in Cater, and apparently following the rationale of former Chief Justice Moyer’s concurring opinion in Cater, Justice Pfeiffer writing for the majority noted that the lead opinion in Cater “created an artificial distinction between indoor pools and outdoor pools . . . [and] we are not persuaded that this language has ongoing relevance.” Id. Rather, the Court in M.H. applied the literal language of the immunity exception in R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) to indoor municipal swimming pools and remanded the case to the trial court.
While not explicitly discussed, the opinion implies that the exception to immunity for injuries within or on the grounds of government buildings applies to both indoor and outdoor municipal swimming pools on a going forward basis. This opinion effectively expands the exceptions to immunity for political subdivisions operating swimming pools.
Should you have a question regarding whether governmental immunity applies in particular circumstances, or a specific question regarding this decision, feel free to contact any of our Reminger Governmental Liability / Public Entity Practice Group Members.