Brown v. Harris
2017 Ohio 2607
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- High-school sophomore Jailynn Brown joined an informal cheer squad coached by Raven Evans‑Harris; practices were unpaid and sometimes held at Raven’s parents’ (Charlotte and Dr. Andre Harris) home.
- The team practiced stunting (flyer/bases) on grass without mats; Jailynn (a flyer) had performed half and full stunts previously but alleges Raven taught the “liberty” stunt the day she was injured.
- At the September 10, 2012 practice, Jailynn fell during a liberty attempt, tore her ACL, and required surgery; Raven may have been momentarily distracted and spotter placement was contested.
- Plaintiffs sued for negligence and loss of consortium against Raven, Charlotte, and Dr. Harris; plaintiffs later added reckless/intentional-conduct theories.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing primary assumption of risk bars recovery for recreational activities absent reckless or intentional conduct; both sides submitted competing expert affidavits on recklessness.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding plaintiffs could not show reckless conduct; this appeal challenges that ruling as to Raven and Charlotte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ conduct was reckless (so as to overcome primary assumption of risk) | Raven’s conduct (teaching advanced stunt on uneven grass without mats, inadequate instruction/spotting) was reckless per expert Rabinoff | Conduct was ordinary coaching of a recreational activity; risks of falling are inherent and facts show at most negligence | Court: No genuine issue of material fact as to recklessness; summary judgment affirmed for both Raven and Charlotte |
| Whether Charlotte owed/specified a duty re: cheerleading supervision | Charlotte helped with conditioning but did not instruct on stunting; plaintiffs argue her involvement created a duty | Charlotte had only de minimis connection and did not supervise stunts | Court: No duty or breach by Charlotte; no recklessness attributable to her |
| Whether Raven’s presence but momentary distraction supports recklessness | Plaintiffs: Raven’s distraction, lack of mats, inadequate progression/spotting demonstrate conscious disregard | Defendants: Practices and spotters were customary; risk of falling on grass is inherent and not unreasonable | Court: Distraction and conditions did not show an unreasonable risk substantially above negligence; expert affidavit insufficient to create triable issue |
| Admissibility/weight of competing expert affidavits on recklessness | Plaintiffs: Rabinoff’s affidavit identifies standards and factual failures creating a triable issue | Defendants: Competing expert and record show customary practice; conclusory opinion cannot convert negligence into recklessness | Court: Court may disregard conclusory expert legal opinions; Rabinoff’s opinion did not create a genuine issue of reckless conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1990) (plaintiff engaged in recreational activity assumes inherent risks; recovery only for reckless or intentional conduct)
- Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1990) (defines recklessness as conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk substantially greater than negligence)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standards for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant’s burden and nonmovant’s reciprocal burden in summary-judgment practice)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 2012) (discussion of recklessness standard in sports context)