LiCause v. City of Canton
537 N.E.2d 1298, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 48, 42 Ohio St. 3d 109 (1989)
Rule of Law:
A municipality is shielded from liability for injuries sustained by a recreational user on public property under Ohio's recreational user immunity statute (R.C. 1533.181). This specific statutory immunity prevails as an exception to the municipality's general statutory duty to keep public grounds open, in repair, and free from nuisance (R.C. 723.01).
Facts:
- The City of Canton owned and operated Stadium Park, a public space.
- Stadium Park was held open to the general public for recreational pursuits, and no entrance fee was charged.
- Appellees, LiCause and Albert, entered Stadium Park without paying a fee.
- While in the park, they engaged in the recreational pursuits of walking to and from a softball field and watching a softball game.
- During their time in the park, LiCause and Albert sustained injuries which gave rise to their legal claims.
Procedural Posture:
- LiCause and Albert each filed lawsuits against the City of Canton in the trial court for injuries sustained in Stadium Park.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of the City of Canton, finding it was immune from liability.
- LiCause and Albert (as appellants) appealed to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgments, holding that the recreational user immunity did not apply to municipalities in this context.
- The City of Canton (as appellant) then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
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 Ohio's recreational user immunity statute, R.C. 1533.181, grant a municipality immunity from liability for injuries sustained by a recreational user on public grounds, despite the duty imposed by R.C. 723.01 to keep such grounds open, in repair, and free from nuisance?
Opinions:
Majority - Resnick, J.
Yes. Ohio's recreational user immunity statute grants a municipality immunity from liability under these circumstances. The court reasoned that both LiCause and Albert qualified as "recreational users" under R.C. 1533.181 because they entered public land free of charge for recreational pursuits. Historically, R.C. 723.01, which imposes a duty of care on municipalities for public grounds, was an exception to sovereign immunity. However, since the abrogation of municipal sovereign immunity, R.C. 723.01 has become part of the general rule of liability. In contrast, R.C. 1533.181 now functions as a special statutory provision granting immunity. According to rules of statutory construction (R.C. 1.51), when a special provision and a general provision conflict, the special provision prevails as an exception. Therefore, the specific immunity for recreational users in R.C. 1533.181 overrides the general duty of care imposed by R.C. 723.01, and the City of Canton owes no duty to the injured recreational users.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the strength of recreational user immunity for municipalities in Ohio, establishing a clear hierarchy between conflicting statutes. By classifying the immunity statute as a 'special' provision that trumps the 'general' duty of care for public lands, the court prioritizes the legislative goal of encouraging public access to recreational areas over compensating every injury. The ruling significantly limits municipal liability for accidents in free public parks, creating a substantial hurdle for plaintiffs who must now demonstrate they are not 'recreational users' to proceed with a negligence claim. This interpretation will likely reduce lawsuits against municipalities and may influence how public entities manage their recreational properties.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: LiCause v. City of Canton (1989)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"