Young v. Eagle
2017-Ohio-7211 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The primary assumption of risk doctrine shields both participants and non-participants, such as property owners, from liability for injuries sustained during a recreational activity, unless the defendant's actions were reckless or intentional. The injured party's age and ability to appreciate the risk are immaterial to the application of this doctrine.
Facts:
- In July 2012, Chasity Fussner brought her four-year-old daughter, Aaliyah Young, to the home of Thomas Eagle for a visit with Aaliyah's father, Jerry Young, who was living there.
- The home was owned by a trust for which Thomas's father, Paul Eagle, was the trustee.
- Aaliyah's father gave her and her sister permission to play with a large tricycle located in the garage.
- The tricycle, which Thomas Eagle had purchased at a garage sale years earlier, had an unguarded rear sprocket and chain.
- Many children had used the tricycle over the years without any prior incidents or injuries.
- While Aaliyah's sister pedaled, Aaliyah stood on a platform at the back of the tricycle.
- Aaliyah became unsteady, and when she reached down to balance herself, her hand was caught in the unguarded chain and sprocket.
- As a result of the incident, Aaliyah suffered serious injuries requiring the amputation of several fingers.
Procedural Posture:
- Aaliyah Young, by and through her guardian, filed a negligence lawsuit against Thomas Eagle, Paul Eagle, and Joan Eagle in the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court).
- The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they were not liable as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, concluding that the primary assumption of risk doctrine barred the plaintiff's claims.
- Aaliyah Young, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Twelfth Appellate District 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 the primary assumption of risk doctrine shield a property owner from liability for injuries a child sustains during a recreational activity on the property, even when the owner is not a participant in the activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge M. Powell
Yes. The primary assumption of risk doctrine shields a property owner from liability for injuries sustained during a recreational activity, even if the owner is not a participant. The court reasoned that the doctrine's application is determined by the plaintiff's status as a participant in a recreational activity, not the defendant's status. It would be illogical to hold participants to a higher standard of reckless or intentional conduct while holding non-participant property owners to a lower, ordinary negligence standard. Citing precedent from Gentry v. Craycraft, the court affirmed that the age of the injured participant is immaterial to the doctrine's application. Therefore, because Aaliyah was engaged in a recreational activity, she assumed the ordinary risks, and Thomas Eagle could only be liable for reckless or intentional conduct, which was not shown. The court also found the attractive nuisance doctrine inapplicable because even if it applied to an invitee like Aaliyah, there was no evidence the tricycle posed a foreseeable risk beyond those inherent in its use.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the extension of the primary assumption of risk doctrine in Ohio to non-participants, such as property owners. By focusing on the plaintiff's engagement in a recreational activity rather than the defendant's role, the court significantly raises the bar for plaintiffs seeking recovery for injuries sustained during such activities. This precedent makes it more difficult to bring successful negligence claims against property or facility owners, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate the much higher standard of reckless or intentional misconduct. The ruling thus provides greater protection from liability for individuals and entities who make their property available for recreational use.
