In the case of Farris v. Mill Creek Metro. Park Dist., 2023-Ohio-1214, an appellate court held that cycling is a recreational activity for the purposes of R.C. 1533.181 or “recreational immunity”; as such, a park owes no duty to a cyclist who is injured on the park’s premises.
In this case, the cyclist argued that (1) the cycling was for a business purpose because the cyclist was going to a for-profit restaurant in the park and (2) the road where the cyclist was injured was used by motorists and was not for recreational purposes. In response, the park argued that (1) the cyclist was engaged in a recreational activity; (2) the road was contained within and maintained by the park; and (3) and the park was open for recreational use so the park was immune from liability under R.C. 1533.181(A)(1). The appellate court agreed with the park.
In support of its decision in favor of the park, the appellate court explained that the cyclist drove to a parking lot before getting on the bike, which means cycling was a choice and a recreational activity. The appellate court further explained that a man-made improvement, such as a road that was contained within the park, did not alter the essential the “character of the property”, which was for recreational purposes and the exact entity that R.C. 1533.181 is supposed to protect.
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.