2022 Ohio 416
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- West Mansfield Conservation Club (WMCC) annually opens its grounds for a community July 4th celebration; entry was free, WMCC did not charge admission or contract with the village, and WMCC did not organize the event.
- Community members bring activities ad hoc; on July 3–4, 2017 the mayor and her husband brought a dunk tank onto WMCC property without consulting WMCC.
- J.S., a minor, attended, climbed the dunk tank ladder, slipped while descending, landed on exposed metal (a hitch/leveling-crank handle), sustained perineal trauma, and required surgery.
- Durfor (mother) sued WMCC and the Kerns for negligence and premises liability; WMCC moved for summary judgment asserting (1) J.S. was a licensee (not an invitee) and (2) recreational-user immunity under R.C. 1533.181.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for WMCC on both bases; Durfor appealed arguing (1) J.S. was an invitee and (2) WMCC was not entitled to recreational-user immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrant status: Was J.S. an invitee (business invitee) or a licensee? | Durfor: Flyers advertising the event, a fish-fry sale, and public exposure to the club show WMCC received a tangible/economic benefit, making J.S. an invitee. | WMCC: No fee, no contract, no required purchases, WMCC did not organize or arrange activities, and no evidence WMCC received an economic benefit from J.S.’s presence — status was licensee. | Court: J.S. was a licensee — she entered for personal pleasure and there was no evidence WMCC received a tangible/economic benefit from her visit; summary judgment for WMCC on that basis was proper. |
| Recreational-user immunity under R.C. 1533.181: Does immunity bar the claim? | Durfor: J.S. was not a recreational user and thus immunity does not apply. | WMCC: Immunity applies to recreational users of the property. | Moot: Court declined to decide because licensee ruling independently supported summary judgment; did not reach immunity question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312 (defines entrant categories and corresponding duties of landowners)
- Light v. Ohio University, 28 Ohio St.3d 66 (licensee takes premises subject to attendant perils; duty limited to refrain from wanton/willful harm)
- Provencher v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 49 Ohio St.3d 265 (economic/tangible benefit test distinguishes invitee from licensee)
- McKinney v. Hartz & Restle Realtors, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 244 (definition/analysis of trespasser status)
- Heffern v. Univ. of Cincinnati Hosp., 142 Ohio App.3d 44 (discusses benefit test and distinction between personal benefit and owner benefit)
- Roesch v. Warren Distrib./Fleet Eng. Research, 146 Ohio App.3d 648 (free services provided on premises do not automatically make an entrant an invitee absent evidence owner provided them to attract business)