Schnetz v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction
959 N.E.2d 554
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In November 2004, Schnetz, an inmate at Mansfield Correctional Camp, was injured during a flag-to-tackle football game.
- Camp rules prohibit tackle football and provide that officers intervene to stop violations; players may request equipment for flag football but protective gear is not provided.
- The game escalated to tackle football; Schnetz collided with inmate Westfield, sustaining a serious spinal injury and quadriplegia.
- Correction officers on duty had knowledge that football was being played and that tackle football could occur, but the game was not stopped before Schnetz’s injury.
- Plaintiff sued the Department for negligence among other claims; the Court of Claims initially rejected the primary assumption of the risk defense, then the trial court found in favor of Schnetz, reducing damages for contributory fault.
- The Ohio Court of Claims reversed, ruling that primary assumption of the risk applies to inmate claims and that the Department owed no duty in light of that doctrine unless recklessness or intentionality is shown; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether primary assumption of the risk applies to inmate negligence claims | Schnetz contends the Department owes a duty; inmates are custodial dependents with heightened duty | ODRC argues primary assumption of the risk negates any duty | Yes; primary assumption of the risk applies to inmate claims, negating duty unless recklessness or intentionality is shown |
| Whether the trial court erred in applying/denying the primary-assumption defense | Crace controls; inmates’ custodial status does not waive the inherent risk analysis | Primary assumption should bar recovery as the activity is inherently risky | Yes; primary assumption of the risk can apply to inmate claims; the court erred in ruling otherwise |
| Impact on damages and liability apportionment given the primary-assumption ruling | If primary assumption applies, there is no duty and no negligence to apportion | If duty exists, fault should be apportioned per contributory-negligence rules | Moot; remand for proceedings consistent with the affirmed ruling on primary assumption of risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Crace v. Kent State Univ., 185 Ohio App.3d 534 (2009-Ohio-6898) (examines primary assumption of risk in recreational contexts)
- Gentry v. Craycraft, 101 Ohio St.3d 141 (2004-Ohio-379) (primary assumption of risk framework; activity-focused analysis)
- Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95 (1990) (recreational/sporting risk and duty considerations)
- Santho v. Boy Scouts of America, 168 Ohio App.3d 27 (2006-Ohio-3656) (negligent supervision context tied to recreation but within primary assumption analysis)
- Kline v. OID Assoc., Inc., 80 Ohio App.3d 393 (1992) (negligent-supervision discussion tied to primary assumption context (dicta))