Jacobs v. Oakwood, 2016 Ohio 5327

On Sept. 1, 2013, Alvin Jacobs (age 30, ~235 lbs.) was injured when the grommet on a yellow “sling” playground swing at Oakwood Village Community Park failed, causing him to fall and injure his ankles and head.
The sling seat was marked "For residential use by one child only" and contained a warning embossed on its underside; Oakwood had installed the swing and conducted routine inspections, most recently three days before the accident.
Jacobs sued the Village of Oakwood alleging negligence and loss of consortium; Oakwood moved for summary judgment asserting political-subdivision immunity (R.C. Chapter 2744), recreational-user immunity (R.C. 1533.181), and assumption of risk.
The trial court denied summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact about immunity and assumption of risk; Oakwood appealed only the denial of immunity defenses.
The court of appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment: (1) a genuine issue exists whether installing a residential-grade swing in a public playground created a "physical defect" under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4); and (2) recreational-user immunity did not apply because Jacobs was on the premises while the park had been rented (a fee had been paid).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) physical-defect exception bars immunity	Jacobs: installing a residential, child-only swing in a public playground and failing to warn constituted a physical defect and Oakwood’s inspections should have revealed wear.	Oakwood: no evidence that a residential designation caused the failure; expert says adult weight caused break; failure-to-warn isn’t a physical defect as a matter of law.	Court: Genuine issue of material fact exists whether residential-grade installation caused the swing to not operate as intended — deny summary judgment on 2744 grounds.
Whether R.C. 1533.181 recreational-user immunity applies	Jacobs: (implicitly) park use was recreational and should trigger immunity.	Oakwood: park open to recreational users; argues immunity applies.	Court: Immunity does not apply — Jacobs was present as a guest while the park was rented (a fee was paid), so the gratuitous-use statute is inapplicable.

Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. Liming, 89 Ohio St.3d 551 (Ohio 2000) (three-tiered analysis for political-subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment burden and standard for nonmoving party to show genuine issues)
Riffle v. Physicians & Surgeons Ambulance Serv., 135 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 2013) (describing second-tier inquiry into R.C. 2744.02(B) exceptions)
Pauley v. Circleville, 137 Ohio St.3d 212 (Ohio 2013) (use of playground equipment is a recreational activity under R.C. 1533.181)
Jarrett v. S. Euclid, 64 Ohio App.3d 743 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (recreational-user immunity does not cover premises not held open gratuitously to the public)
Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2007) (order denying statutory immunity is a final, appealable order)