2019 Ohio 1457
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In April 2014 Davis and her mother sued operators and affiliates of a haunted-house attraction (“Dungeons of Delhi”) after Davis was chased by a costumed worker and fell, alleging negligence and civil assault.
- The complaint named multiple defendants over a series of amendments, including the Mateikats (members of “Dungeons”), Delhi Township entities, Del‑Fair, and Boy Scouts; some defendants were later dismissed with prejudice.
- In March 2016 the trial court entered summary judgment for the Mateikats (holding Dungeons an unincorporated nonprofit association and the Mateikats immune), but that order omitted Civ.R. 54(B) language. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action in January 2017 and refiled under Ohio’s saving statute.
- After the case was refiled, the Mateikats moved to dismiss (converted to summary judgment) and Dungeons moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted both motions. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The appellate court held the earlier interlocutory summary-judgment order became a nullity when plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all defendants, and therefore reviewed the subsequent summary-judgment rulings on the merits. The court reversed and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of Civ.R. 41(A) voluntary dismissal on prior interlocutory summary judgment | Voluntary dismissal of all defendants renders prior interlocutory SJ a nullity | Prior SJ became final/appealable once other defendants were voluntarily dismissed | Voluntary dismissal of all defendants under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) rendered the prior interlocutory SJ a nullity (Denham principle applies) |
| Whether Mateikats were entitled to summary judgment based on R.C. Chapter 1745 immunity (Dungeons = unincorporated nonprofit association) | Dismissal aside, Mateikats argue they were entitled to SJ because Dungeons is an unincorporated nonprofit association, shielding members from personal liability | Plaintiffs contend there was no evidentiary support in the refiled action record proving Dungeons met statutory definition | Court reversed: Mateikats failed to meet initial Dresher summary-judgment burden because record lacked evidence establishing Dungeons as an unincorporated nonprofit association |
| Primary assumption of risk as a defense to negligence for haunted-house injury | Davis: she had not entered the attraction when chased; thus could not be said to have assumed the risk of being chased inside the haunt | Dungeons: injury occurred within the attraction/event, so plaintiff assumed inherent risk of being scared/chased | Reversed: factual disputes (conflicting testimony/affidavit) about whether Davis was inside the attraction when injured precluded SJ on primary assumption of risk |
| Secondary (implied) assumption of risk / contributory negligence | Davis: whether she consented/acquiesced to a known/obvious risk is a jury question | Dungeons: plaintiff impliedly assumed the risk of being scared and reacting | Reversed: implied-assumption/contributory-negligence issues are factual and inappropriate for summary judgment here |
Key Cases Cited
- Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 1989) (finality of orders requires R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B) when multiple parties/claims exist)
- Denham v. New Carlisle, 86 Ohio St.3d 594 (Ohio 1999) (Civ.R. 41(A) voluntary dismissal nullifies interlocutory orders as to dismissed parties)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant for summary judgment must initially show no genuine issue of material fact via evidentiary materials)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1990) (primary assumption of risk is an affirmative defense that can bar negligence claims)
- Horvath v. Ish, 134 Ohio St.3d 48 (Ohio 2012) (primary assumption of the risk applies to recreational activities; only risks inherent to activity are assumed)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 2006) (a moving party cannot rely on inconsistent affidavits to obtain summary judgment)