Estate of Sample v. Xenos Christian Fellowship, Inc.
2021 Ohio 3898
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- On May 14, 2013, Kwesi Sample drowned while swimming across an ocean inlet at Holden Beach during a geocaching activity organized by a Xenos group; group leader Joshua LeVan had said Sample could swim.
- The Estate sued Xenos for wrongful death, alleging negligence and negligent supervision/training; the trial court applied North Carolina law to the tort claims.
- On initial appeal (Sample I), this court affirmed summary judgment for Xenos on the negligence claim (contributory negligence under North Carolina law) but reversed as to negligent supervision/training and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand Xenos moved for summary judgment on negligent supervision and negligent training; the trial court granted summary judgment, finding no duty under North Carolina for supervision and no duty under Ohio for training to protect against hazards of open-water swimming.
- The Estate appealed only the negligent training ruling; the Tenth District affirmed, holding Xenos owed no duty to train group leaders to protect Sample from open-water swimming hazards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court granted summary judgment on a ground Xenos properly raised | Trial court relied on a different legal basis (Ohio law) than Xenos’ earlier NC-law arguments; awarding SJ on that basis was improper | Xenos renewed a duty argument based on Ohio law on remand and supported it with record facts; court could adjudicate that ground | Court: Xenos adequately raised and supported the Ohio-law duty argument; SJ on that basis was proper |
| Whether Xenos owed a duty to train leaders to protect Sample from open-water swimming (negligent training) | Xenos failed to train leaders on planning activities like geocaching; that constructive knowledge of incompetence made injury foreseeable | No evidence Xenos knew or should have known LeVan was incompetent; planning recreational activities doesn’t imply need for specialized training; hazards were open and obvious | Court: No duty existed to train leaders to protect against inherent dangers of open-water swimming; negligent training claim fails as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38 (9th Dist. 1995) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc., 94 Ohio App.3d 579 (8th Dist. 1994) (summary judgment review principles)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party's initial burden under Civ.R. 56)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (nonmoving party's burden to show genuine issue)
- State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 (1997) (summary judgment standards)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (1989) (duty is question of law)
- Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 (2002) (factors for recognizing legal duty)
- Jeffers v. Olexo, 43 Ohio St.3d 140 (1989) (foreseeability test for duty)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (1984) (definition of foreseeability for negligence)