Young v. Eagle
2017 Ohio 7211
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In July 2012 four-year-old Aaliyah Young was injured on a large, garage-sale tricycle at Thomas Eagle’s home; her fingers were amputated after contacting an unguarded rear sprocket and chain.
- Aaliyah rode while her sister pedaled; their father, Jerry Young, was present and supervising.
- Plaintiffs sued Thomas Eagle, and Paul and Joan Eagle (Paul as trustee and individually), alleging negligence, design defect, attractive nuisance and related damages.
- Thomas testified he bought the tricycle circa 2000, made no modifications, and that neighborhood children had used it without prior injury.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Eagles: it held primary assumption of risk barred recovery (no reckless/intentional conduct shown), the tricycle was not a dangerous instrumentality, attractive nuisance did not apply, and plaintiffs failed to show Thomas designed the tricycle.
- On appeal the Twelfth District affirmed in all respects and dismissed claims against Paul and Joan for lack of control/connection to the premises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of primary assumption of risk to non-participant defendant | Young: doctrine shouldn’t bar recovery because Thomas did not participate in the recreational activity | Eagles: doctrine bars recovery for injuries during recreational activities unless defendant acted recklessly or intentionally, regardless of defendant’s participation | Court: extends primary assumption of risk to non-participants; Young barred absent evidence of reckless/intentional conduct |
| Effect of plaintiff's age on assumption of risk | Young: four-year-old cannot assume tricycle risks | Eagles: age immaterial under Ohio law for this doctrine | Held: age is immaterial (Gentry), so assumption of risk still applies |
| Attractive nuisance / invitee status | Young: attractive nuisance applies even to invitees; foreseeability of danger suffices without showing dangerous instrumentality | Eagles: tricycle did not present foreseeable risk beyond inherent risks; no evidence of dangerous condition or design defect | Held: attractive nuisance inapplicable—tricycle presented only ordinary risks; no genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment |
| Liability of Paul and Joan / trustee control | Young: seeks recovery from Paul (trustee) and Joan | Eagles: Paul/Joan lacked possession/control of premises; trustee did not exercise control to impose tort liability | Held: affirmed dismissal—no factual basis to impute liability to Paul or Joan, and trustee lacked the requisite possession/control |
Key Cases Cited
- Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1990) (adopts primary assumption of risk for recreational participants)
- Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1990) (extends recreational rule to spectators)
- Gentry v. Craycraft, 101 Ohio St.3d 141 (Ohio 2004) (age/maturity immaterial to primary assumption of risk)
- Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427 (Ohio 1996) (successful primary assumption defense negates duty element)
- Bennett v. Stanley, 92 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 2001) (adopts Restatement §339 attractive nuisance framework)
- Wills v. Frank Hoover Supply, 26 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 1986) (landowner liability depends on possession/control of premises)
- DiGildo v. Caponi, 18 Ohio St.2d 125 (Ohio 1969) (duties owed to invitees: ordinary care and warnings)