Horvath v. Ish
954 N.E.2d 196
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Horvaths sue David Ish and parents for injuries Angel suffered in a ski-area collision at Boston Mills on March 6, 2007.
- David Ish was snowboarding; others were present at the resort when the collision occurred.
- Initial complaint also named Boston Mills Ski Resort and Peak Resorts, which were later dismissed.
- Ishes moved for summary judgment on April 19, 2010 arguing assumption of risk, open-and-obvious danger, and no statutory duty between skiers.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on May 18, 2010; Horvaths appealed with two assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 4169.08 imposes duties between skiers | Horvaths: statute creates ski-to-ski duties; Ishes violated. | Ishes: duties are owed to ski-area operators, not to other skiers. | statute applies; skiers owe duties; first assignment sustained. |
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact on recklessness | Recklessness by Ish required for recovery under common law after 4169 applies. | If 4169 applies, recklessness questions are for fact-finder; no clear per se finding. | Facts create a material dispute on recklessness; summary judgment improper on this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eisenhuth v. Moneyhon, 161 Ohio St. 367 (Ohio 1954) (negligence per se-related discussion cited by the court)
- Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Tracy, 75 Ohio St.3d 125 (Ohio 1996) (statutory interpretation and construction principles)
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment standard and burden-shifting references)