Stay Out of the Sand: Court Examines Physical Defects and Tort Liability for Districts
Bossart v. Brecksville-Broadview Hts. City School Dist.
On May 21, 2026, Ohio’s Eighth 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.
- First, there is a general rule that political subdivisions have broad immunity from liability.
- This immunity may be lost if one of the five exceptions set forth in the law applies.
- 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 Eighth 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.
