In Pauley v. Circleville, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4541, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that a City is immune for hazards in its public parks when the park is being used for a recreational activity.
By way of background, pursuant to Ohio’s recreational-user statutes, R.C. 1533.18 and 1533.181, property owners whose premises are open free of charge to recreational users are immune from liability for injuries suffered by individuals while they are participating in recreational activities. The Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pauley, tests the boundaries of this statutory immunity.
In this case, the City of Circleville stored a large pile of debris from a construction site at one of its parks because the City’s municipal maintenance facility had reached capacity. In January, 2007, the mound of debris was covered with snow and area residents used the mound for sledding. One sledder, eighteen year-old Jeremy Pauley, suffered severe injuries when he struck his head on a large wooden object that was protruding from the mound. As a result of the accident, Pauley was rendered quadriplegic.
Pauley filed a lawsuit against the City alleging that the City was responsible for his injuries because the debris pile was a hazard created at the park by the City. Pauley acknowledged the existence of the recreational-user statutes, but argued that because the City had modified the property in such a way as to actually create the hazard that injured him, immunity should not apply.
Relying upon the recreational-user statutes, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. On review, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed to review the lower courts’ decisions.
In its review, the Court began by noting the fact that Pauley was at the park, free of charge, to go sledding. As such, Pauley was, by definition, a recreational user within R.C. 1533.181. Thus, regardless of whether or not the debris pile was a hazard, the statute holds that a property owner owes no duty to a recreational user to keep the property safe for entry or use. The Court also refused to treat the debris mound as a manmade improvement that “so changed the essential character of the park” as to take it outside the protection of the statute. For these reasons, the Court refused to create an exception to the recreational-user statutes under the facts of this case.
For a copy of this opinion, or more information concerning its application, or any other question with respect to governmental/public entity liability to the public, please contact one of Reminger’s Governmental/Public Entity Liability Practice Group members.
