Students and families involved in the Lawrence Tower mold lawsuit are going to see four of the five claims move to trial in the Ohio Court of Claims. Credit: Casey Smith | Lantern File Photo
Students and families involved in the Lawrence Tower mold lawsuit will see one of two lawsuits move to trial.
On Sept. 8, the Ohio Court of Claims Judge David Cain ruled that four of five claims that were brought against Ohio State in one of the two Lawrence Tower lawsuits can move forward.
Lawrence Tower has been vacant since the beginning of the spring semester due to mold growth in the residence hall. In one room, the mold spore count reached 2 million, exceeding the normal count of 9,000, according to prior Lantern reporting.
Two firms, Be Well Law and Bressman Law, filed a joint lawsuit Monday, Jan. 13, with 32 plaintiffs named in the court complaint, according to prior Lantern reporting. The lawsuit alleges that Ohio State was aware of the mold problem after acquiring the previous Holiday Inn property, and housed students there despite that.
The four claims that are moving forward to trial are negligence, breach of implied warranty of hability, nuisance and breach of contract. Cain dismissed the lawsuit’s claim of fraud, according to the lawsuit.
“At this time, we are pleased that the Court of Claims has ruled in favor of allowing four of our client’s claims against Ohio State to proceed to trial,” Jedidiah Bressman, an attorney working on the case at Bressman Law, said in a statement. “We believe this reflects the seriousness of the issues raised and the importance of a full and fair hearing on the merits.”
Bressman continued to say that there is currently not a trial date and that the attorneys representing the plaintiffs are committed to pursuing justice as the case moves forward.
University spokesperson, Ben Johnson, said the university does not comment on ongoing litigation.
Breach of implied warranty of habitability
Cain ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the breach of implied warranty of habitability due to Ohio’s Landlord-Tenant Act. The act states that the university, which is a landlord in this case to the students in the dorms, is required to make sure that the standards of their residences are liveable.
In the lawsuit, students and their family claim that Ohio State failed to keep their dorm rooms in a safe, liveable condition, and therefore also constitutes negligence.
Negligence
In the lawsuit, students and families claim that the university failed to do its due diligence in keeping Lawrence Tower a safe residence hall for students to live in. The plaintiffs claim that Ohio State acted with general negligence and also negligence per se, citing that a landlord in a rental agreement must continue to keep the building in habitable condition.
Ohio State originally filed a motion to dismiss this claim since it is an overlap of the breach of contract claim. However, Cain ruled in favor of this claim, deciding that negligence and breach of contract claims can be pursued at the same time.
Breach of Contract
In Ohio State’s housing contract, it states that the university is obligated to provide accommodations for residential purposes, while also keeping them in safe and sanitary condition, according to the lawsuit.
While this theory overlaps that of the nuisance claims, there are different legal theories behind both that make them applicable in their own ways. The breach of contract claim focuses specifically on enforcing obligations under the housing contract, according to the lawsuit.
The court ruled in favor of the breach of contract claim, providing that whether the plaintiffs will be able to use both theories in trial will depend on the evidence, as well as avoiding using the evidence twice.
Nuisance
The plaintiffs also claimed Ohio State’s failure to remove the mold to create safe living conditions for students “interfered with their right to reasonably use and enjoy their dorm rooms.”
By not meeting these standards, the court affirmed the plaintiffs experienced “annoyance, discomfort, and inconvenience” and “physical discomfort.”
The university’s legal team argued this claim fell under the breach of contract, but the judge found that it is a distinct legal theory.
