In the case of Thomas v. Chimera, 2021-Ohio-4204, the Fifth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants-property owners in a negligence action.
Here, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants were negligent and reckless in their supervision of a zipline on the defendant’s property after the plaintiffs’ daughter was injured. The defendant’s moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that summary judgment was proper since immunity applied because the zipline was on nonresidential property and the child was a recreational user who was using the zipline at a party and did not pay a fee. The Court further reasoned that the plaintiff’s failed to show that the defendants willfully destroyed evidence by replacing the zipline system.
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.