COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            No. 76091
SUMMER DARST, A MINOR, ETC.   :
                              :       JOURNAL ENTRY
          Plaintiff-appellee  :
                              :           AND
     vs.                      :
                              :         OPINION
BAY VILLAGE BOARD OF EDUCATION:
                              :
          Defendant-appellant :
                              :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT          :     NOVEMBER 10, 1999
 OF DECISION                  :
                              :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS      :    Civil appeal from
                              :    Court of Common Pleas
                              :    Case No. CV-350864
                              :
JUDGMENT                      :    DISMISSED
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellee:            For defendant-appellant:
E. TASSO PARIS, ESQ.
Paris & Paris
55 Public Square, Suite 1275
Cleveland, OH 44113
DENISE B. WORKUM, ESQ.
MARILLYN FAGAN DAMELIO, ESQ.
Lakeside Place, Suite 410
323 Lakeside Avenue, West
Cleveland, OH 44113
                               -2-
JOHN T. PATTON, J.:
     This case  came to be  heard upon  the accelerated  calendar
pursuant to App.R.  11.1 and Local Rule  25, the record from  the
Cuyahoga County  Court of Common Pleas,  the briefs and the  oral
arguments of counsel.  Plaintiff Summer Darst cut her knee on  an
out-of-bounds sprinkler head while playing a varsity soccer  game
for Bay Village High School.  She filed this suit seeking $250,000
in compensation  from the Bay Village  Board of Education.   Both
parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment   plaintiff filed
her motion asking for a determination that the board was liable as
a matter of law; the board filed its motion claiming immunity under
R.C. Chapter  2744.  The  court denied both  motions.  The  board
brings this appeal pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(C), and complains that
the  court erred  by  not  finding plaintiff's  claim  barred  by
sovereign immunity.
     We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal.  R.C.  2744.02(C),
the code  section that authorizes  an interlocutory  appeal by  a
political subdivision which has been denied immunity from suit, was
part of the comprehensive tort reform legislation codified as part
of Am.  Sub. H.B. 350.   In State ex  rel. Ohio Academy of  Trial
Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, paragraph three  of
the syllabus states,  Am. Sub. H.B. 350 violates the  one-subject
provision of Section 15(D), Article II of the Ohio  Constitution,
and is unconstitutional in toto.   Whether intended or not,  this
ruling voids application of R.C. 2744.02(C).  See Perry v. Goodin
(Sept. 16, 1999), Mahoning App. No. 99 C.A. 187, unreported; Thomas
                               -3-
Vending, Inc. v. Slagle (Sept. 24, 1999), Marion App. No. 9-99-16,
unreported. Absent statutory authority for this appeal, the order
denying the  city's  motion  for summary  judgment  on  sovereign
immunity  grounds cannot  be considered  a final  order and  must
therefore be dismissed.
     Dismissed.
                               -4-
     This  cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court  for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
     It is,  therefore, considered that said appellee recover  of
said appellant its costs herein.
     It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to
carry this judgment into execution.
     A certified copy of  this entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
JAMES M. PORTER, A.J.
DIANE KARPINSKI, J.,    CONCUR .
                                             JUDGE
                                          JOHN T. PATTON
    N.B.  This entry is an announcement of the court's  decision.
See App.R. 22(B), 22(D)  and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22.  This decision
will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the
court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration
with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10)
days of the announcement of the court's decision.  The time period
for  review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run  upon
the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the
.