Drury v. Blackston, 2015 Ohio 4725

On June 23, 2013, four‑year‑old James Drury was invited to defendants David and Heather Blackston’s home to play with their children; the backyard contained a pool, trampoline, and tree house.
James removed his arm floaties, entered the pool, swallowed/ingested water, was pulled out by the Blackstons’ child and David, vomited, and was evaluated at hospitals; he was discharged the next day.
Plaintiffs (James’s parents and siblings) sued the Blackstons for negligence, alleging inadequate supervision and relying on heightened duties (custodial responsibility and attractive‑nuisance doctrines).
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Ohio’s recreational‑activity (primary assumption of risk) doctrine bars negligence claims for recreational injuries unless conduct was reckless or intentional, and that no reckless/intentional conduct was alleged.
Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed raising three related assignments of error about duty, heightened supervision, and attractive nuisance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the recreational‑activity doctrine applies where the injured party is a child under seven	Children under seven cannot assume risk; defendants owed a heightened or at least ordinary duty to supervise James	Recreational‑activity doctrine applies to swimming regardless of age; plaintiffs must show reckless or intentional conduct to prevail	Doctrine applies; age immaterial; summary judgment affirmed because no reckless/intentional conduct alleged
Whether defendants owed a heightened duty by assuming supervisory/custodial responsibility	By agreeing to supervise James, defendants assumed custodial responsibility and thus owed an elevated standard of care	Assumption of supervision does not negate recreational‑activity bar; mere supervision does not transform standard to negligence liability absent reckless/intentional acts	No heightened duty for negligence claims in recreational context; assumption of supervision does not defeat the doctrine
Whether the attractive‑nuisance doctrine applies (pool as attractive nuisance)	Pool posed unreasonable risk to children and defendants knew children would frequent it, so attractive‑nuisance imposes liability	Attractive‑nuisance applies to trespassers; James was an invited social guest, not a trespasser; recreational‑activity doctrine controls	Attractive‑nuisance inapplicable because James was a social guest; negligence claim barred by recreational‑activity doctrine

Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (procedure for de novo review of summary judgment)
Gentry v. Craycraft, 101 Ohio St.3d 141 (recreational‑activity/primary assumption of risk requires reckless or intentional conduct to override bar)
Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95 (recognition of primary assumption of risk in recreational contexts)
Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102 (no negligence liability for injuries caused by negligence during recreational activities)
Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause, injury)
Bennett v. Stanley, 92 Ohio St.3d 35 (outline of attractive‑nuisance doctrine and landowner liability)
Shump v. First Continental‑Robinwood Assoc., 71 Ohio St.3d 414 (landowner duty varies by entrant status: trespasser, licensee, invitee; social guest concept)