K.D. v. Schneider
2017 Ohio 1502
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On April 23, 2013, a 16-year-old plaintiff (K.D.) crashed an ATV into a tree on property owned by Shannon Schneider, sustaining injuries; she had been dating Shannon's son Justin.
- Plaintiff sued Shannon and Justin Schneider alleging negligent entrustment, failure to warn/instruct/supervise, and related negligence claims. Amanda Schneider was voluntarily dismissed.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting the recreational-use immunity (R.C. 1533.181), assumption of ordinary risk for recreational activities, and no negligent entrustment.
- Defendants submitted affidavits saying Shannon required permission, safety gear, and personally instructed/observed K.D.; Justin stated he instructed her and saw no unsafe operation until she later ran into a tree.
- K.D. disputed some facts: she said she never obtained permission from her grandmother, had limited instruction (a brief demonstration), experienced steering difficulty (including a prior minor crash into a bush), and felt fearful but continued riding.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the appellate court affirmed, finding no evidence of reckless/intentional conduct or negligent entrustment sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants acted recklessly or intentionally so as to avoid assumption-of-risk bar | K.D. argues inadequate instruction/supervision and that defendants knew she was inexperienced, creating a triable issue of reckless conduct | Defendants say they instructed, required helmets, observed operation, and did not act recklessly or intentionally | No: evidence did not rise to reckless or intentional conduct; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether recreational-use immunity bars negligence claims | K.D. contends defendants’ alleged failures (entrustment, supervision, instruction) remove immunity | Defendants invoke R.C. 1533.181 and assumption of ordinary risk for recreational activities | Court applied assumption-of-risk precedent and immunity context and found no reckless or intentional conduct to overcome the protections |
| Whether negligent entrustment occurred | K.D. argues ATV was entrusted to an inexperienced/incompetent driver and defendants knew or should have known | Defendants argue plaintiff had instruction, rode for hours, was capable, and there was no reason to know she was incompetent | No: plaintiff failed to show defendants knew she was incompetent or had facts implying such knowledge; no genuine issue on entrustment claim |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment | K.D. points to conflicting statements about permission, extent of instruction, and prior steering problems | Defendants point to affidavits and deposition testimony showing instruction, observation, and plaintiff’s admissions that she controlled and accelerated the ATV | No: viewing evidence most favorably to K.D., reasonable minds could only conclude for defendants as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (procedural standard for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95 (participants in recreational/sporting activities assume ordinary risks absent reckless or intentional conduct)
- Gulla v. Straus, 154 Ohio St. 193 (doctrine and elements of negligent entrustment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (party seeking summary judgment bears initial burden and required showing)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (appellate standard for reviewing summary judgment)