Combs v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Parks & Recreation (Slip Opinion), 55 N.E.3d 1073

Background

On July 28, 2011, Richard Combs (a recreational user) was struck in the face and eye by a rock thrown from riprap after an ODNR employee operating a boom mower hit the riprap at Indian Lake State Park.
Combs sued the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) in the Court of Claims for negligent operation of the mower by its employee.
The Court of Claims granted summary judgment for ODNR, holding that R.C. 1533.181 (the recreational-user statute) barred the claim because Combs was a recreational user.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning the statute immunizes landowners only for injuries caused by defective conditions of the premises, not for injuries caused by a landowner’s active negligence.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court: the recreational-user statute limits liability for premises-based defects, but does not bar claims based on negligent operation by landowner employees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does R.C. 1533.181 bar negligence claims by recreational users for injuries caused by landowner employees (not by a defective condition)?	Combs: immunity applies only to injuries arising from the condition of the premises; active negligence by employees remains actionable.	ODNR: statute eliminates duty to recreational users and thus precludes negligence claims whenever entry is granted without charge.	The statute bars liability only for injuries arising from defective conditions of the premises; it does not bar claims alleging negligent conduct by landowner employees.
Whether the recreational-user statute abrogates the common-law duty to avoid active negligence toward licensees/trespassers	Combs: common-law duty to avoid active negligence survives unless statute clearly supersedes it.	ODNR: statute transformed recreational users into a class with no duty owed, effectively superseding prior common-law duties.	Court: absent clear statutory language, common-law duty to avoid negligently injuring persons on the premises remains; statute was not construed to absolve all negligent acts by landowners/employees.
Whether the rock thrown by a mower is a “defect in the premises” for immunity purposes	Combs: injury resulted from mower operation (active negligence), not a premises defect.	ODNR/Dissent: rock was part of riprap (part of premises); therefore injury arises from the premises and immunity applies.	Court: factual posture showed injury from negligent operation striking riprap; legal scope of statute focuses on premise-based defects, so immunity did not apply to alleged negligent mowing.
Whether Ryll (fireworks shrapnel) controls scope of immunity	Combs: Ryll supports limiting immunity to premises defects because shrapnel was not part of premises.	ODNR: distinguishes Ryll but argues broad immunity should cover injuries occurring on premises.	Court: Ryll supports the premise-based limitation; immunity covers defects in premises but not negligent acts of landowner/employees.

Key Cases Cited

Fryberger v. Lake Cable Recreation Assn., Inc., 40 Ohio St.3d 349 (1988) (R.C. 1533.181 supplants common-law entrant-status analysis; duty depends on recreational-user status)
Pauley v. Circleville, 137 Ohio St.3d 212 (2013) (interprets R.C. 1533.181 as precluding liability for injuries that arise from defects in the premises)
Ryll v. Columbus Fireworks Display Co., Inc., 95 Ohio St.3d 467 (2002) (recreational-user immunity does not apply where injury is caused by a foreign object not part of the premises)
McCord v. Ohio Div. of Parks & Recreation, 54 Ohio St.2d 72 (1978) (recreational-user statute applies to state-owned lands under waiver of sovereign immunity)
Klein v. United States, 50 Cal.4th 68 (2010) (statutory duty to "keep the premises safe" is property-based and does not shield landowners from vehicular negligence)
Union News Co. v. Freeborn, 111 Ohio St. 105 (1924) (common-law duty to avoid active negligence toward known licensees/trespassers)