Stay Out of the Sand: Court Examines Physical Defects and Tort Liability for Districts

Stay Out of the Sand: Court Examines Physical Defects and Tort Liability for Districts

by | Jun 19, 2026 | Board Policy & Representation, School Management

Bossart v. Brecksville-Broadview Hts. City School Dist.

On May 21, 2026, Ohio’s 8th Appellate District reversed a lower court ruling, allowing a lawsuit to proceed against a public school district after a student was injured during a track event while jumping into a sand pit. The case, centered on the district’s general immunity from tort damages, focused on whether the alleged defect with the sand pit was “perceivable.”

While participating in the long jump during a track meet held at the district’s facility, the student suffered a ruptured ligament in his leg. The student attributed this injury to the unusually cold weather at the time, which had caused the sand in the pit to harden. He further argued that the district did not rake or inspect the sand pit before holding the long jump event. In response, the district argued that it was immune from tort liability pursuant to Ohio’s laws granting broad immunity to political subdivisions.

Ohio courts apply a three-tiered analysis when examining whether a district is protected against tort liability.

  1. First, there is a general rule that political subdivisions have broad immunity from liability.
  2. This immunity may be lost if one of the five exceptions set forth in the law applies.
  3. Immunity may be reinstated if the political subdivision raises one of several affirmative defenses set forth in the law.

This case is focused on the second tier of analysis. Districts can lose their immunity protections for damages “caused by the negligence of their employees and that occur within or on the grounds of, and…due to physical defects within or on the grounds of” buildings connected to the performance of governmental functions. The district argued that a physical defect must be immediately perceivable to the naked eye, without further inspection by the district, before the defect eliminates liability protections. According to the district, it would not have been possible to perceive the “hardness” of the sand based only on the air temperature and an observation that the pit may not have been raked.

The court pushed back on this argument, citing a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision that did not consider perceivability as a factor. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a “physical defect” could be “reasonably understood as a tangible imperfection that impairs the function of an object.” And at least one other decision from Ohio’s 8th District considered the existence of a physical defect that would have been perceivable only upon physical inspection.

The court was also skeptical of the district’s argument that the sand pit was not defective because only one long jumper was injured. No evidence was introduced regarding the number of long jumpers who competed that day, only that the student in question was injured, and the student was not required to conclusively prove the long-jump pit was defective at this stage. His allegations about the condition of the pit (which were not disputed by the district), combined with his subsequent injury, were enough to allow the case to proceed.

What does this mean for your district? The existence of a physical defect on school grounds is one of several ways that a district, which is normally immune from liability, may be sued for damages under tort law. A physical defect is a tangible imperfection that impairs the function of an object, but it should not be assumed that districts are protected if the imperfection is not immediately perceivable to the naked eye. It is worth noting that the district in this case has not yet been found liable for damages. Rather, the ruling allows the case to proceed. Liability may be found if the student subsequently shows that the condition of the sand pit constituted a physical defect and no affirmative defenses are applicable.

 

 

 

Special Education Update: Section 504 is No Longer a Quiet Corner of Student Services

Special Education Update: Section 504 is No Longer a Quiet Corner of Student Services

by | Jun 19, 2026 | Special Education

Recent Civil Rights Data Collection information shows that the percentage of students identified as “Section 504-only” continues to rise nationally and in Ohio. For the 2021–22 school year, the national rate was 3.93%, up from the prior collection year. Ohio followed the same trend, increasing from 3.42% in 2020–21 to approximately 3.8% in 2021–22. Nationally, Ohio ranks 16th of 50 states for its percentage of Section 504-only students.

For school districts, the question is whether the district’s Section 504 practices are keeping pace with student needs. An increase in Section 504 eligible students may reveal inconsistent referral practices, confusion about the difference between Section 504 and IDEA, staffing issues, or plans that exist on paper but are not consistently implemented.

Section 504 requires districts to provide a free appropriate public education to qualified students with disabilities, and the regulations require appropriate evaluation and placement procedures. Staff and administrators should be able to quickly explain when and how to refer a student and how to best draft and review Section 504 plans.  

What does this mean for your school district? Section 504 is an operational and compliance issue, not just a paperwork issue. District leaders should ensure that building teams are trained, Section 504 coordinators have the authority and time needed to manage the process, Section 504 plans are reviewed periodically, and district Section 504 procedures intersect with discipline, attendance, safety plans, testing, extracurricular activities, and transportation. Because Section 504 does not come with the same dedicated funding structure as IDEA, districts can easily misjudge the amount of staffing and oversight required for compliance. A stronger approach is to build consistent procedures now before a complaint or dispute arises. Please reach out to your Ennis Britton attorney if you need resources, forms, or training for your teams.

ADA Reminder: Reasonable Accommodation Doesn’t Have to be the Preferred Accommodation

ADA Reminder: Reasonable Accommodation Doesn’t Have to be the Preferred Accommodation

by | Jun 19, 2026 | Labor and Employment

Andrea Tumbleson v. Lakota Local School Dist. Bd. of Educ., Case No. 25-3548 (6th Cir. 2026).

On May 13, 2026, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an Ohio school district did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by requiring a teacher to use unpaid leave to attend a training course with her guide dog.

Tumbleson, an art teacher, had been diagnosed with a rare disease that caused gradual vision and hearing loss. Tumbleson applied for a guide dog in 2022. She was required to attend a five-day orientation and mobility training program, which required her to miss five days of school. The district approved her use of sick leave for this initial training session, as the human-resources director explained that employees were typically only required to complete FMLA paperwork for “extended absences” of ten or more days.

Tumbleson was eventually matched with a guide dog but was required to attend a three-week training course in May 2023, which meant she missed the end of the school year. Tumbleson requested the use of thirteen paid sick days to attend the training course. The request was granted in part by the district. Tumbleson was permitted to attend the training course using a mix of personal days and unpaid leave as an accommodation under the ADA. FMLA leave may be used only in limited circumstances, and district policy stated that sick leave could be used for “personal illness, injury or exposure to contagious disease.” The District did not believe that the training fit within either category even after Tumbleson received a letter from her doctor arguing the training was for “medical reasons” because the guide dog was part of her “treatment plan.”

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the district on both the ADA and FMLA claims, upholding a lower court ruling that granted summary judgment to the district. The Court held that Tumbleson’s discrimination case failed because she did not demonstrate that the district treated “similarly situated” employees more favorably in their requests for paid leave. Tumbleson relied on the fact that the district “routinely” granted sick leave without going through the formalities and pointed to the fact that she previously had been granted sick leave for the earlier 5-day training. However, the Court argued Tumbleson’s own experience demonstrated that the district’s leave policy was neutrally applied. She benefited from the rule when she was permitted to take sick leave for her earlier, shorter training, and it was only when she requested an extended absence that the human resource department reviewed whether the training qualified.

The Court also argued that the use of unpaid leave was a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Employers “need not provide” the specific accommodation that an employee wants. Rather, the employer has “discretion” to choose among alternative accommodations so long as they will permit the employee to perform the job. Because the unpaid leave allowed Tumbleson to obtain her guide dog, the Court concluded that the district met its obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation and the district had the “ultimate discretion” to choose a less expensive option, even if paid leave would have caused less hardship for Tumbleson.

Finally, the Court determined that Tumbleson also was not entitled to paid leave under the FMLA. To obtain paid leave, Tumbleson needed to show that the district “normally provided” paid leave for those in her situation. Citing 29 U.S.C. 2612(c) and 29 U.S.C. 2612(d)(2)(B). Here, the district testified that Tumbleson’s request did not fall within the definition of sick leave under Ohio law, the district’s collective bargaining agreement, or the school board’s sick leave policy and Tumbleson’s attorney failed to sufficiently challenge the district’s position.

What does this mean for your district? While districts must ensure that they are not discriminating against an employee on the basis of their disability, the ADA requires reasonable accommodation and nothing more. So long as the district’s policy is being consistently applied for all employees, unpaid leave is generally considered a reasonable accommodation and districts have discretion to choose the less expensive option even if it conflicts with the individual’s financial or other preferences.