Costello v. Sumner
669 N.E.2d 575, 1995 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 90, 78 Ohio Misc.2d 14 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner owes no duty of care to a volunteer who is injured after entering the owner's property to perform a rescue. Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, the absence of a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff acts as a complete bar to a negligence claim.
Facts:
- William and Diane Sumner were the neighbors of William D. and Sarah Costello.
- A fire started in the basement of the Sumner home, allegedly when their dogs chewed through a gas pipe connected to the hot water heater, which was then ignited by the pilot light.
- The Sumners were not home at the time the fire started.
- Noticing the fire, William Costello entered the Sumners' house and rescued their two dogs.
- After rescuing the dogs, Mr. Costello attempted to extinguish the fire with his own garden hose.
- In the process of breaking a basement window to spray water on the fire, Mr. Costello severely injured his right hand.
Procedural Posture:
- William D. and Sarah Costello filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against William and Diane Sumner in an Ohio trial court.
- The defendants, the Sumners, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a homeowner owe a duty of care to a neighbor who is injured after voluntarily entering the homeowner's property to rescue pets and extinguish a fire allegedly caused by the homeowner's negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Judith Ann Lanzinger
No. A homeowner does not owe a duty of care to a neighbor who voluntarily undertakes a rescue on their property. To establish negligence, a plaintiff must prove the defendant owed them a duty, breached that duty, and the breach proximately caused injury. In this case, the Sumners owed no contractual or other legal duty to Mr. Costello, who acted as a volunteer. As a volunteer, Mr. Costello assumed the risk of his own injury. The court applied the doctrine of 'primary assumption of risk,' which is not about the plaintiff's conduct but is an alternative expression for the concept that the defendant owed no duty of care. Because the existence of a duty is an essential element of a negligence claim and no duty was owed by the Sumners, the Costellos' claim for personal injury fails as a matter of law, and Mrs. Costello's derivative claim for loss of consortium fails with it.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine as a complete bar to recovery in a negligence action. It reinforces that the existence of a legal duty is a threshold question of law for the court, and without it, a negligence claim cannot proceed. The decision distinguishes between a volunteer rescuer of property, to whom no duty is owed, and other situations where a duty might exist. This holding limits the liability of property owners for injuries sustained by 'Good Samaritans' who voluntarily place themselves in harm's way to protect property.
