Background
M.S. alleged that her eighth-grade English teacher, Benjamin Rutan, began grooming and sexually abusing her while she attended Norton Middle School. The alleged abuse continued after she left the school, including during visits to volunteer with school sports and participate in a mentorship program involving Rutan. Rutan later pleaded guilty to two felony counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.
M.S. sued the South-Western City School District, its board of education, then-principal Tresa Davis, and others. After dismissing other defendants, she pursued claims including negligent retention and supervision, failure to report suspected abuse under Ohio’s mandatory-reporting statute, negligence, negligent security, and emotional-distress claims. The trial court denied summary judgment on most claims based on statutory immunity.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the district was not immune from M.S.’s negligence-per-se claim alleging a failure to report suspected child abuse under R.C. 2151.421. Although the reporting statute identifies individuals with reporting duties, controlling Ohio Supreme Court precedent establishes that a school board may face liability for its employees’ failure to make required reports.
The district was immune, however, from M.S.’s remaining negligence claims. Student safety, supervision, and school security are part of the governmental function of providing public education, not proprietary functions subject to the asserted immunity exception. The court also upheld the denial of summary judgment to Davis because evidence created factual disputes about what she knew about Rutan’s conduct and whether her alleged inaction was reckless, wanton, malicious, or in bad faith.
Key Takeaways
- A school district may be liable for negligence per se based on employees’ alleged violations of Ohio’s child-abuse mandatory-reporting law.
- Claims based on negligent supervision, general negligence, and negligent school security remain barred by political-subdivision immunity here.
- Factual disputes over an administrator’s knowledge of warning signs can preclude employee immunity at summary judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves a distinct route for claims against Ohio school districts when employees allegedly fail to report suspected abuse, while confirming broad immunity for related negligence theories tied to operating public schools.
For school administrators, the ruling underscores that evidence of reports, rumors, or visible warning signs may create a jury question on whether inaction was reckless or wanton.