2020 Ohio 488
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In April 2017 Margaret Huston was struck from behind while roller skating at Brookpark Skateland during a Thursday public session and sustained serious injuries (broken hip and shoulder, multiple surgeries, extended rehab).
- Huston sued Skateland alleging negligence, willful and wanton conduct, and breaches of duties under R.C. Chapter 4171 (operator and floor-supervisor duties).
- Eyewitness Patrick Perotti testified that in-line speed skaters were skating dangerously fast, that the skater who hit Huston repeatedly passed other skaters, and that this conduct occurred in view of the floor supervisor.
- The on-duty skate guard denied observing excessive speed; Skateland’s owner acknowledged guards must enforce RSA/R.C. rules and that failing to intervene could breach duties.
- Skateland moved for summary judgment asserting Huston assumed the ordinary risks of skating under R.C. 4171.09 and relevant case law; the trial court granted summary judgment for Skateland.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding a genuine factual dispute whether Skateland breached statutory duties or acted willfully/wantonly (which would defeat the assumption-of-risk defense).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skateland was entitled to summary judgment based on assumption of risk and lack of breach of R.C. 4171.06/.07 | Huston: the in-line skater skated recklessly in view of the floor supervisor; Skateland breached its supervisory duties and acted willfully/wantonly, so assumption-of-risk defense fails | Skateland: skaters assume risks of contact; guards did not observe excessive speed and thus no breach occurred; summary judgment appropriate | Reversed. Court held a genuine issue of material fact exists whether Skateland breached duties or acted willfully/wontonly; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 559 N.E.2d 699 (1990) (participants assume ordinary risks; recovery only for reckless or intentional conduct)
- Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102, 559 N.E.2d 705 (1990) (no liability among participants for negligence; recklessness remains actionable)
- State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181, 677 N.E.2d 343 (1997) (summary-judgment standard under Civ.R. 56)
- Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Natl. Dairy Herd Improvement Assn., Inc., 141 Ohio App.3d 269, 750 N.E.2d 1169 (2001) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)