The Ohio Court of Appeals has ruled against the City of Piqua in a case involving allegations of toxic emissions from fire training and research activities conducted at a former water treatment plant. The court's decision allows residents to move forward with their claims of negligence and strict liability, which could have significant implications for public safety and municipal liability.

The case, known as Grimes v. Piqua (Case No. 26 CAE 04 0029), centers around injuries allegedly sustained by residents due to activities conducted at the decommissioned water treatment plant. This ruling is particularly important for the 24 plaintiffs who claim they were exposed to harmful emissions over several years, raising concerns about public health and environmental safety.

Background

The dispute began when the City of Piqua partnered with private entities to transform its former water treatment plant into a regional emergency training center. Between January 2018 and September 2023, the Energy Storage Response Group (ESRG) and Bensen Fire & Safety Consulting conducted research involving the burning of lithium-ion batteries. This process was intended to develop techniques for suppressing battery fires.

However, complaints from residents about explosions, smoke, and health issues led regulatory authorities to investigate the site. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the activities exceeded the permissions granted, prompting the City of Piqua to suspend operations. In September 2025, the plaintiffs filed their initial complaint against the city and the private entities involved, alleging exposure to toxic emissions.

The Ruling

The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge William B. Hoffman, reviewed the trial court's March 2, 2026 decision which denied Piqua's motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding counts of negligence and strict liability. The court found that the claims were not ripe for a final decision on immunity, stating, "Given the present state of the record it is impossible to say with certainty whether activities on Piqua's property with respect to destruction of lithium-ion batteries... qualifies as a proprietary function."

The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged facts that could demonstrate negligence or reckless conduct on the part of the city. The ruling allows the case to proceed to the discovery phase, where more evidence can be gathered. The judges concurred that the city had not conclusively established its entitlement to immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for both the plaintiffs and the City of Piqua. If the plaintiffs can prove their claims, it could lead to substantial liability for the city, setting a precedent for how municipalities handle similar training and research activities in the future. The case raises important questions about the responsibilities of local governments in ensuring public safety and environmental protection.

Moreover, the decision highlights the legal complexities surrounding the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act in Ohio. The court's ruling indicates that municipalities may not be able to rely solely on statutory immunity when their actions could be classified as negligent or reckless, particularly when public health is at stake.

What's Next

The City of Piqua may still pursue further legal options, including the possibility of appealing the ruling. The case will now proceed to the discovery stage, where both parties will gather evidence to support their claims. The outcome of this case could have lasting effects on municipal liability and public health standards in Ohio.