640 N.E.2d 897 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1994
This cause was heard upon the appeal of Rachel Opheim from an order in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas granting the Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings of appellees city of Lorain and Lorain Department of Parks and Recreation. We affirm.
On June 17, 1992, Rachel Opheim, a minor, and her mother were watching her brother's Little League baseball game at Longfellow Park in Lorain, Ohio. The park is owned and maintained by Lorain and the Little League is sponsored by the Lorain Department of Parks and Recreation.
While Rachel was watching the game from an area commonly used by spectators, a limb from a tree fell on Rachel's head, causing serious injuries. Rachel, by and through her mother, sued Lorain and the Lorain Department of Parks and Recreation,1 alleging that the defendants were negligent and/or acted with reckless or wanton disregard for her safety in not properly maintaining the tree on the park property.
On August 19, 1993, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court held that R.C.
It is from this order that Rachel now appeals,2 asserting two assignments of error.
Appellant alleges that R.C.
In analyzing whether immunity under R.C.
The fact that the injury did not take place in a rural or semi-rural area and involved an activity not specifically mentioned in the statute does not necessarily mean that the statute does not apply. The first assignment of error is overruled.
Appellant argues that, even if R.C.
R.C.
"(A) No owner, lessee, or occupant of premises3:
"(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." (Footnote added.)
"Recreational user" is further defined at R.C.
"[A] person to whom permission has been granted, without the payment of a fee or consideration to the owner, lessee, or occupant of premises, other than a fee 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."
Several courts have held that spectators at athletic events are recreational users of property. LiCause v. Canton (1989),
"A person is not a `recreational user' * * * if he pays a fee * * * to enter upon `premises' to engage in recreational pursuits." (Emphasis sic.) Moss v. Dept. of Natural Resources
(1980),
The second assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
COOK and DICKINSON, JJ., concur.