Simmons v. Quarry Golf Club, L.L.C.
60 N.E.3d 454
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Quarry Golf Club built a bunker with a 12" x ~30" drain covered by a cast-iron lid; the bunker was removed in 2007 and converted to unmaintained natural rough while the drain remained.
- Over time the rough grew high and the club stopped routine maintenance of that area; drain covers at the course were acknowledged to dislodge periodically.
- On July 19, 2011, Keith Simmons searched for a playing partner’s ball in the rough at hole #4, stepped into an uncovered drain, and suffered shoulder, leg, and back injuries.
- Plaintiffs (Keith and Rhonda Simmons) sued the golf club for negligence and loss of consortium; defendants moved for summary judgment invoking the primary-assumption-of-risk doctrine and arguing lack of notice/responsibility for the missing cover.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the risk was inherent in golf and plaintiffs could not show notice or responsibility for the missing cover; the court of appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether primary assumption of risk bars recovery | Simmons: falling into an uncovered drain is not an inherent, foreseeable risk of golf | Quarry: searching for a ball in rough is an inherent golf risk; plaintiff assumed the risk | Court: primary assumption of risk does not apply — an uncovered drain is not an ordinary or foreseeable golf risk |
| Whether defendant had a duty/failed to inspect | Simmons: Quarry created/retained the hazard and failed to inspect or warn; constructive knowledge inferred | Quarry: did daily visual inspections; no routine drain checks; no proof they knew of this uncovered drain | Court: genuine issue of material fact exists whether Quarry knew or should have known of the missing cover; duty to inspect and warn applies |
| Whether defendant was responsible for or had notice of missing drain cover | Simmons: Quarry installed the drain and admitted covers dislodge; responsible for hazard | Quarry: no evidence of specific notice or that it caused the cover to be missing | Court: disputed facts preclude summary judgment — plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to raise inference of responsibility/constructive knowledge |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Simmons: disputed material facts preclude judgment as a matter of law | Quarry: no genuine issue; doctrine and lack of notice entitle them to judgment | Court: reversed summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1984) (elements of negligence claim)
- Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427 (Ohio 1996) (primary assumption of risk eliminates duty in sports absent reckless or intentional conduct)
- Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1990) (participants assume ordinary risks of recreational activities)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1985) (landowner duty to invitees to maintain premises and warn of hidden dangers)
- Perry v. Eastgreen Realty Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 51 (Ohio 1978) (duty to inspect to discover dangerous conditions)
- Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co., 141 Ohio St. 584 (Ohio 1943) (methods to prove breach in premises-liability: responsibility, actual knowledge, or sufficient time for constructive notice)