In the case of Stone v. Northmont City Schools, 2022-Ohio-1116, Appellate Court held that a public school district was entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 1533.181, Ohio’s recreational user statute, from a bicyclist’s negligence claim when the bicyclist was injured after riding into a rope placed by a school employee across a bike trail on school property before a cross-country race.
Here, the school district argued that it was immune from liability under R.C. 1533.181 because a defect in the condition of the premises caused the bicyclist’s injuries. The bicyclist argued that the rope was not a condition of the premises, and that by placing the rope on the trail, the school changed the “essential character” of the trail from recreational property open to the public to a private cross-country course, and, as a result, the recreational user statute was not applicable. The Court agreed with the school district and found that the recreational characterization of the property did not change; therefore, the recreational user statute would apply.
In support of its finding that the school district was entitled to recreational user immunity pursuant to R.C. 1533.181, the Court explained that under R.C. 1533.181(A)(1), property owners are generally not liable for injuries to recreational users caused by a defect in the condition of the premises. In this case, because the bicyclist was harmed by a condition on the premises, the school district did not owe a duty to the cyclist to keep the premises safe; therefore, the school district could not be held liable for the bicyclist’s injuries.
The Court also explained that in determining whether R.C. 1533.181 applies, courts must consider the “essential character” of the property. The Court concluded that the rope was a condition of the premises because it was staked in the ground. The Court further concluded that the placement of the rope did not change the “essential character” of the premises because at the time of the accident, the trail remained open to the public free of charge. As a result, the school district was not liable for the bicyclist’s injuries.
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.