In the case of Inskeep v. Columbus Zoological Park Assn., 2023-Ohio-288, an appellate court held that an issue of fact existed — to be determined by a jury — as to whether a zoo was liable for injuries to a mother who was struck by her own three-year old child while driving an unattended golf cart.
In this case, a mother argued that an issue of fact existed — to be determined by a jury — as to whether a zoo was liable for her injuries as a zoo employee violated zoo policies by leaving the unattended golf cart running, operating the golf cart without an escort, and using the golf cart for non-emergency purposes during operational hours. In response, the zoo argued that the zoo simply did not owe the mother a duty to protect the mother as the zoo employee could not foresee that the mother’s own child would operate an unattended golf cart and injure the mother. The appellate court agreed with the mother and remanded the case back to the lower court for a jury trial.
In support of its decision to in favor of the mother, the appellate court explained that the zoo may owe the mother a duty to exercise ordinary care and protect the mother by maintaining the premises in a safe condition depending on the foreseeability of the injury, which can only be determined by a jury.
WARNING: This holding was based upon the undisputed material facts in this case. The outcome may have been much different had the facts been different.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.