Marchetti v. Kalish
53 Ohio St. 3d 95, 559 NE 2d 699 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A participant in a recreational or sporting activity assumes the ordinary risks of the activity and cannot recover for an injury unless the other participant's conduct was either reckless or intentional.
Facts:
- A group of children, including the plaintiff and a boy named Rich, were playing a neighborhood game of 'kick the can'.
- The plaintiff was 'it' and was standing on the ball used as the 'can'.
- She saw Rich running towards her from about 15 feet away and called out to him, indicating he was caught and should stop.
- Rich did not stop and continued running towards the plaintiff.
- Rich kicked the ball that the plaintiff was standing on.
- As a result, the plaintiff fell and suffered a broken leg.
- The plaintiff later testified that she did not believe Rich intended to hit her but kicked the ball out of frustration.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in the trial court for personal injuries.
- The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, applying a negligence standard.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the decision of the court of appeals to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a participant in a recreational or sporting activity recover for personal injuries based on a showing of mere negligence by another participant?
Opinions:
Majority - Resnick, J.
No. A participant in a recreational or sporting activity cannot recover for injuries based on another participant's negligence; recovery requires proof of reckless or intentional conduct. The court rejects a negligence standard because it would open the floodgates to litigation over common sports-related injuries and would discourage vigorous participation in such activities. The court joins the weight of authority from other jurisdictions in holding that participants assume the ordinary risks inherent in a sport. This standard applies equally to organized and informal activities, as well as to both children and adults, to balance the promotion of free participation with the need for player safety. The court explicitly declines to adopt the Restatement of Torts 2d approach, which focuses on the plaintiff's consent to the rules of the game, finding it unworkable, especially in cases involving children.
Concurring - Moyer, C.J.
Yes, but for limited reasons. The Chief Justice concurs in the judgment but would confine the holding specifically to the civil liability of children engaged in informal play. He argues for an even higher standard in such cases, suggesting that minors engaged in unorganized sports should be liable only for their intentional acts, not for recklessness. He expresses concern that judging the conduct of children during casual play by anything less than an intentional tort standard is inappropriate, as youth is an experimental phase of life.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the controlling standard of care for injuries sustained during recreational and sporting activities within the jurisdiction, moving away from a traditional negligence standard. By requiring plaintiffs to prove reckless or intentional conduct, the court provides significant legal protection to participants and promotes a policy of encouraging vigorous athletic activity without the fear of litigation for ordinary carelessness. This holding aligns the state with the majority of jurisdictions and solidifies the doctrine of assumption of risk in the context of sports, making it substantially more difficult for injured players to recover damages.
