Tallarigo v. Dryden, 2013 Ohio 5496

11-year-old Dontae Tallarigo routinely rode a Honda XR-50 dirt bike on his grandparents’ (~6 acre) property, which contains wooded trails used for off-roading. Dontae stored the bike at the grandparents’ home.
On the day of the incident Dontae rode into the woods, the bike stalled, and his uncle Grant Dryden rode a four-wheeler to the woods entrance to check on him after Dontae did not emerge for several minutes.
As Grant approached the woods entrance at ~5–10 mph and began to turn in, Dontae exited the woods after ramping off a root at ~20 mph, went airborne, and collided with the front tire of Grant’s four-wheeler; Dontae lost the top portion of his left big toe.
The Tallarigos sued Grant (and the grandparents, whose summary judgment is not appealed) alleging negligence and recklessness; both parties moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted judgment for defendants.
On appeal the Tallarigos argued Grant’s conduct was reckless (not just negligent) and that “attendant circumstances” (vegetation, noise from ATV, Dontae riding alone) increased the risk so primary assumption of risk should not bar recovery.
The court held the activity was recreational, collision risk was an ordinary/foreseeable risk of off-roading, and the evidence did not show Grant acted recklessly as a matter of law; summary judgment for Grant was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether primary assumption of risk bars recovery for injury sustained while riding a dirt bike	Dontae’s risks were increased by attendant circumstances (vegetation, noise, riding alone), so the collision was not an ordinary/foreseeable risk of dirt biking	Riding dirt bikes/off-roading is a recreational activity and collisions with other riders are an ordinary, foreseeable risk assumed by participants	Court: Primary assumption of risk applies; collisions in off-roading are ordinary risks, so plaintiff must show recklessness or intent to recover
Whether Grant’s conduct was reckless (so assumption of risk does not bar recovery)	Grant entered the woods without stopping to check and thus acted with conscious disregard	Grant approached cautiously at 5–10 mph, slowed to turn, and was checking on his nephew—conduct consistent with at most negligence	Court: No evidence of recklessness; conduct was not reckless as a matter of law, summary judgment for Grant affirmed

Gentry v. Craycraft, 101 Ohio St.3d 141 (recognizes that participants in recreational activities assume ordinary risks and can recover only for reckless or intentional conduct)
Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95 (establishes the rule on assumption of risk in recreational activities)
Horvath v. Ish, 134 Ohio St.3d 48 (skiers assume ordinary risks including collisions with other skiers)
Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (defines reckless conduct as conscious disregard of an obvious risk)
O'Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 (recklessness requires more than negligence)
Rankin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 118 Ohio St.3d 392 (describing the high standard for proving recklessness)
Wellman v. E. Ohio Gas Co., 160 Ohio St. 103 (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)
Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427 (primary assumption of risk can negate duty element)