Pauley v. City of Circleville, 998 N.E.2d 1083

Jeremy Pauley, an 18-year-old, was injured while sledding in Barthelmas Park (city-owned, open free to public) after striking an object embedded in a mound of topsoil/debris the city had deposited in the park; he became quadriplegic.
The city had accepted ~150–200 truckloads of free topsoil and, when its maintenance yard filled, dumped the remaining soil into the park forming two ~15-foot mounds; debris (railroad-tie-like object) was later found in the mound.
Pauley and his mother sued the city for negligence, recklessness, and wantonness, alleging disposal of waste/debris created a dangerous, altered condition on public property.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the city on grounds of recreational-user immunity (R.C. 1533.18 / 1533.181); the Fourth District affirmed (one dissent); the Ohio Supreme Court accepted discretionary review.
Appellants argued immunity should not apply where a landowner has modified property to create hazards that do not promote or preserve recreation; the city argued the statute provides a bright-line immunity when land is open for recreational use free of charge.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: because Pauley was a recreational user on premises held open for recreational purposes, the city owed no duty to keep the premises safe, and immunity applied despite the alleged manmade hazard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether recreational-user immunity applies when a landowner creates a manmade hazard that does not promote recreation	Pauley: immunity should not bar recovery where owner altered property to create a hazard unrelated to recreational use	City: R.C. 1533.181 creates a bright-line rule — no duty to keep premises safe when open to public for recreation free of charge	Held: Immunity applies; creation of a hazard on recreational premises does not negate immunity when user fits statutory definition
Whether Miller or Ryll create an exception when injuries stem from manmade improvements or non-premises causes	Pauley: Miller requires that manmade improvements only get immunity if they enhance recreation; Ryll limits immunity where cause not traceable to a premises defect	City: Miller and Ryll do not undermine immunity for defects on recreational premises; Ryll is limited to injuries not caused by a premises defect	Held: Ryll inapplicable (injury here was caused by a premises defect); Miller does not support plaintiff’s proposed exception — property must be viewed as a whole to determine essential character

LiCause v. Canton, 42 Ohio St.3d 109 (statutory definition includes municipal land)
Miller v. Dayton, 42 Ohio St.3d 113 (manmade improvements do not automatically remove recreational-user immunity; examine essential character of premises)
Ryll v. Columbus Fireworks Display Co., Inc., 95 Ohio St.3d 467 (recreational-user immunity does not apply where injury is not attributable to a defect in the premises)
Marrek v. Cleveland Metroparks Bd. of Commrs., 9 Ohio St.3d 194 (sledding is a recreational pursuit covered by statute)
Moss v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 62 Ohio St.2d 138 (purpose of statute: encourage landowners to open land for recreation without fear of liability)