2022 Ohio 3428
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Phil Masterson was beaten and left to die at a privately rented cabin on Island Club property in 2011; several renters (the tortfeasors) had exclusive possession and control of that cabin during the rental.
- Island Club consisted of separate entities: Equity Trust (owner), PMJ Properties (manager), and Island Club POA (common-area manager); the Island Club did not have possession or control of the cabin at the time of the incident.
- The Estate sued the tortfeasors and Island Club entities for wrongful death, common-law negligence (including failure to provide security), and negligent hiring/supervision.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Island Club, holding it owed no duty to Masterson; the Estate appealed only the duty issue.
- The appellate court framed the question as whether an out-of-possession landowner owes a duty to protect a third person from criminal acts by the possessor absent a special relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Island Club owe a duty to protect Masterson from criminal acts at the rented cabin? | Masterson was an invitee/social guest or otherwise entitled to protection as to require security (innkeeper/business-invitee duty). | No duty: Island Club was out-of-possession; duty to protect or warn rests with the possessor (renters) absent a special relationship. | Held: No duty as a matter of law; summary judgment for Island Club affirmed. |
| Could Island Club be treated as an innkeeper or a business opening property to the public, giving rise to a special relationship? | The cabin rental equates to an inn or business invite that creates a duty to protect guests. | The cabin was a privately rented residential unit (not an inn) and Island Club did not hold it open to the public. | Held: Estate failed to show the cabin was an inn or that Island Club held property open to the public; special-relationship exception not met. |
| Does foreseeability of criminal conduct create a duty to act? | Foreseeability of harm (criminality) supports imposition of duty to provide security. | Foreseeability alone cannot create a duty; duty requires a special relationship or possession/control. | Held: Foreseeability is irrelevant to duty’s existence; it only affects scope after a duty exists. No duty here. |
| Can negligent hiring/supervision or failure to provide security be a basis for liability? | Island Club negligently hired/supervised security or should have provided security, so liable for resulting death. | No security was provided and no employee conduct caused the injury; no duty existed to require security. | Held: Negligent-hiring/supervision claim fails because no duty to provide security and no employee conduct alleged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1996) (standard of review for summary judgment).
- Argabrite v. Neer, 149 Ohio St.3d 349, 75 N.E.3d 161 (Ohio 2016) (summary judgment standard under Civ.R. 56).
- Estate of Ridley v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities, 102 Ohio St.3d 230, 809 N.E.2d 2 (Ohio 2004) (elements for negligence-based wrongful death).
- Simpson v. Big Bear Stores Co., 73 Ohio St.3d 130, 652 N.E.2d 702 (Ohio 1995) (duty to protect others from third-party criminal conduct arises from special relationship and possession/control).
- Shump v. First Continental-Robinwood Assocs., 71 Ohio St.3d 414, 644 N.E.2d 291 (Ohio 1994) (premises-liability duties hinge on possessor/occupier status).
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 788 N.E.2d 1088 (Ohio 2003) (foreseeability alone does not create a duty).
- Fed. Steel & Wire Corp. v. Ruhlin Constr. Co., 45 Ohio St.3d 171, 543 N.E.2d 769 (Ohio 1989) (Restatement-based duty analysis regarding control/possession).