The issue presented by this cause is whether, by virtue of R.C. 1533.181, a residential pool owner is immune from a suit for damages resulting from injuries sustained
R.C. 1533.181 provides:
“(A) No owner, lessee, or occupant of premises:
“(1) Owes any duty to a recreational user to keep the premises safe for entry or use;
“(2) Extends any assurance to a recreational user, through the act of giving permission, that the premises are safe for entry or use;
“(3) Assumes responsibility for or incurs liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of a recreational user.”
R.C. 1533.18 defines the terms “рremises” and “recreational user” as follows:
“As used in sections 1533.18 and 1533.181 of the Revised Code:
“(A) ‘Premises’ means all privately-owned lands, ways, wаters, and any buildings and structures thereon, and all state-owned lands, ways, and waters leased to a private person, firm, organization, or corporation, including any buildings and structures thereon.
“(B) ‘Recreational user’ means a person to whom permission has been granted, withоut the payment of a fee or consideration to the owner, lessee, or occupant of premises, other than a feе or consideration paid to the state or any agency thereof, to enter upon premises to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, swim, or engage in other recreational pursuits.”
Appellants maintain that these statutes reflect the intention of the General Assembly to cоnfer a blanket immunity on all private landowners whose guest or invitee is injured while engaging in a recreational pursuit on private land, wherе no fee for entry is required. We disagree.
“ ‘The primary duty of a court in construing a statute is to give effect to the intention of the Legislaturе enacting it.’ ” Brown v. Martinelli (1981),
Considered in this light, R.C. 1533.181 was clearly not intended to confer immunity on owners of private residential swimming pools whose social guests are injurеd while swimming. Ordinarily, privately owned backyard pools are not kept open to the general public. Owners of such pools typically restrict the use thereof to family members, friends, neighbors and other acquaintances. It is seldom, if ever, expected that all members оf the general population are welcome to enter the premises and utilize the swimming facilities.
Since the purpose of thе legislation conferring immunity is to encourage owners of premises suitable for recreational pursuits to open their lands for publiс use, it follows that where the land in question is not held open to the
Our refusal to apply R.C. 1533.181 to immunize appellants is unrelated to the fact that the land on which the injury оccurred is apparently suburban rather than rural. R.C. 1533.181 contains no indication that only owners or occupiers of rural lands are entitlеd to the immunity conferred by the statute. While it is true that several of the recreational uses enumerated in R.C. 1533.18(B) are typically rural pursuits (e.g., hunting, traрping and camping), others, such as swimming and fishing, are frequently enjoyed within city limits. Moreover, the term “other recreational pursuits,” as used in R.C. 1533.18(B), expands the class of activities to similar pursuits,
Although we are convinced that R.C. 1533.181 was not intended to apply exclusively to rural lands, we are also certain that this statute was not intended to include residential backyards within the definition of premises. The purpose of the enactment, as well as its placement in Title 15 of the Revised Code, whiсh is devoted to conservation of natural resources, strongly indicates that only “the true outdoors” was within the contemplation of the General Assembly. Most of the recreational uses enumerated in R.C. 1533.18(B) are generally conducted in “the wide open spaces,” such as parks or wilderness tracts, a fact which lends further support to our conclusion that the General Assembly did not intend the immunity to extend to rеsidential property used for purely private purposes.
Amici curiae argue that since R.C. 1533.181 is plain and unambiguous, and since it contains no express language limiting its scope to lands held open to the general public, it may not be presumed that such a limitation was intended. However, this court has refused in the past to engage in a literal reading of R.C. 1533.181, on the basis that a literal interpretation of this “in-
Therefore, we hold that the immunity provided by R.C. 1533.181, the recreational user statute, does not extend to private owners of residential swimming рools whose social guest is injured while swimming, where the premises in question are not held open for gratuitous recreational use by the gеneral public.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further рroceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
For purposes of this opinion, land is not “open to the public” unless members of the public are welcome to enter. Where an employer, for example, keeps land open to employees and their guests for recreational use, the land is not “open to the public.”
In Light v. Ohio University (1986),
This court has previously indicated that R.C. 1533.181 abrogates the common law. McCord v. Div. of Parks & Recreation (1978),