The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued a decision extending recreational user statute immunity to real property owners who have man-made hazards on their property. This is an important decision for property owners who open their land for recreational purposes because it limits their liability and further clarifies the application of the recreational user statute for man-made hazardous conditions on property.
In the recent Ohio Supreme Court case of Pauley v. City of Circleville, 137 Ohio St.3d 212 (2013), Plaintiff was catastrophically injured while sledding at a park owned by the City of Circleville. Entry to the park was free. In the summer of 2006, the City offered free topsoil excavated from a nearby construction site. The remaining topsoil was left at the park and emptied onto the ground, where it formed two mounds approximately 15 feet high. One afternoon the 18-year old Plaintiff and his friends decided to go sledding at the park. The Plaintiff claimed that as he was sledding down one of the mounds, he “hit an immoveable object,” “instantly went numb” and could not move his body. The Plaintiff suffered a broken neck, which caused him to become a quadriplegic. The day after, his friends went back and observed what looked like a railroad tie where Plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff and his mother filed a complaint alleging that the city acted negligently, recklessly, and wantonly in dumping debris in the park, which resulted in a physical defect that caused Plaintiff’s injuries.
The central issue in Pauley was the recreational user statutes, O.R.C. §1533.18 and 1533.181, which generally hold that property owners who open their premises to recreational users free of charge are immune from liability for injuries suffered by recreational users engaged in recreational activities. The Plaintiffs urged the Court to hold that if a property owner modifies his or her property in a manner that creates a hazard without promoting or preserving the recreational character of the property, then immunity does not apply.
The recreational user statute states that “no owner owes any duty” to any recreational user. The Court thus determined that an owner of recreational property cannot be liable for injuries sustained during recreational use “even if the property owner affirmatively created a dangerous condition.” Applying this principle, the Court held that the City owed the Plaintiff no duty to keep the premises safe and that the City’s alleged creation of a hazard on the premises did not affect this immunity.
This decision is an important clarification of the recreational user statute, which will provide additional protection to owners of recreational land including government entities that often open their land to the public. If the property owner takes actions which are later determined to have created a hazard, the property owner cannot be liable as long as the property qualifies as recreational property and the user qualifies as a recreational user engaged in a recreational activity.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, or would like a copy of the decision, please feel free to call one of our Governmental or General Liability Practice Group members.
