Pauley v. City of Circleville
998 N.E.2d 1083, 2013 Ohio 4541, 137 Ohio St. 3d 212 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio's recreational-user statute (R.C. 1533.181), a property owner who opens their premises to the public for recreational use free of charge is immune from liability for injuries sustained by a recreational user, even if the owner affirmatively created the dangerous condition that caused the injury.
Facts:
- The city of Circleville owned Barthelmas Park, a property open to the public free of charge for recreational activities.
- In the summer of 2006, the city accepted approximately 150-200 truckloads of free topsoil from a construction site.
- After its primary storage facility reached capacity, the city dumped the remaining topsoil into Barthelmas Park, forming two mounds approximately 15 feet high.
- The mounds contained debris, including an object that resembled a railroad tie, which was not visible under the snow.
- On January 24, 2007, 18-year-old Jeremy Pauley went to Barthelmas Park with friends to go snow sledding.
- As it was getting dark, Pauley sledded down one of the man-made dirt mounds.
- While sledding, Pauley struck a hard, immovable object hidden in the mound.
- The impact broke Pauley's neck, rendering him a quadriplegic.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeremy Pauley and his mother filed a complaint against the city of Circleville in the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court).
- The city of Circleville filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from suit under Ohio's recreational-user statute.
- The trial court granted the city's motion for summary judgment.
- The Pauleys, as appellants, appealed the decision to the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Pauleys then filed a discretionary appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which the court accepted for review.
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 apply to a property owner who creates a man-made hazard on the premises that does not further or maintain its recreational value?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennedy, J.
Yes, the recreational-user immunity statute applies even when a property owner creates a man-made hazard that does not enhance the property's recreational value. The plain language of R.C. 1533.181(A)(1) states an owner owes 'no duty' to a recreational user to keep the premises safe. The statutory analysis focuses on two elements: the character of the property as a recreational area and the status of the injured party as a recreational user. The landowner's actions in creating a hazard are irrelevant to this analysis. Cases like Miller v. Dayton establish that man-made alterations do not remove immunity unless they change the essential recreational character of the property 'viewed as a whole.' The presence of a single hazard like a railroad tie does not alter the fundamental character of a park. Creating a judicial exception for landowner-created hazards would contradict the statute's plain language and undermine its legislative purpose of encouraging landowners to open their property for public recreation without fear of liability.
Dissenting - Pfeifer, J.
No. Joining Justice O'Neill's dissent, this opinion argues that Ohio's recreational-user immunity statutes are overbroad and provide unreasonable, and in the case of government entities, unconstitutional protection to property owners.
Dissenting - O'Neill, J.
No, the recreational-user immunity should not apply in this case. When a property owner converts a recreational park into a municipal dump site for construction fill and debris, the immunity granted by the statute should cease. The purpose of the statute is to encourage recreational use, not to shield a tortfeasor who actively makes the property more dangerous for a non-recreational purpose like dumping waste. By choosing to dump debris in the park, the city lost its immunity for that action. The majority's reliance on viewing the property 'as a whole' is incorrect when the owner makes a conscious decision to use a portion of the property for a dangerous, non-recreational purpose.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens Ohio's recreational-user immunity by establishing a bright-line rule that is highly deferential to landowners. It clarifies that a landowner's active negligence in creating a dangerous condition is not an exception to statutory immunity. The ruling solidifies the legal analysis as a simple two-part inquiry into the user's status and the property's overall character, effectively foreclosing claims based on the origin of the hazard. Consequently, this precedent makes it exceedingly difficult for individuals injured on public or private recreational land to recover damages, prioritizing the public policy of keeping land accessible over compensating for injuries caused by landowner negligence.
