An Ohio Court of Appeals recently held that a political subdivision was immune from liability for a motor vehicle accident occurring when the plaintiffs were returning from a recreational activity.
Ohio’s recreational use immunity statute, R.C. 1533.181 provides that no owner, lessee, or occupant of premises: (1) owes any duty to a recreational user to keep the premises safe for entry or use; (2) extends any assurance to a recreational user, through the act of giving permission, that the premises are safe for entry or use; (3) assumes responsibility for or incurs liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of a recreational user. Ohio law defines a “recreational user” as a person to whom permission has been granted, without the payment of a fee or consideration to the owner to enter upon premises to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, or swim, or to operate a snowmobile, all-purpose vehicle, or four-wheel drive motor vehicle, or to engage in other recreational pursuits.
In Estate of Finley v. Cleveland Metroparks (2010), 189 Ohio App. 3d 139, 2010-Ohio-4013, the Eighth Appellate District extended immunity in motor vehicle accident cases when the individual in question was going to and from recreational activities. By way of background, in August 2005, Patrick Finley was driving his motorcycle with his wife, Sally Finley, on Riverview Road through the Cleveland Metroparks in Brecksville. The Finleys were returning from a picnic in the park. As the Finleys were traveling down Riverview Road, a tree fell into the roadway and the motorcycle struck the tree. The accident resulted in injuries to Mr. Finley and the death of Mrs. Finley. The Finleys filed suit against the Metroparks.
The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the Metroparks, which was based on grounds of recreational use immunity and other grounds. However, the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed and entered summary judgment in favor of the Metroparks finding that the Metroparks had immunity from liability under Ohio’s recreational use immunity statute.
The Finleys argued that their use of the road was not recreational because they were headed home from their picnic, which is akin to a motorist using Riverview Road to commute to and from work. The Appellate Court was not persuaded and held that a recreational use does not end its character as recreational merely because the user is returning from the recreational activity, especially if the user’s method of travel is indistinguishable in outward appearance from a recreational activity. The court concluded that the Finleys’ motorcycle ride in the Metroparks was a recreational pursuit and their status was one of a recreational user. As such, the Metroparks owed the Finleys no duty to keep the premises safe for entry or use.
The Finley decision is particularly useful to governmental entities who can now invoke immunity for motor vehicle accidents where individuals are going to and from recreational activities. For more information about this decision, or to discuss any other issues, please feel free to contact any of Reminger’s Governmental Public Entity Group attorneys.
