An Ohio court ruled that the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (“Department”) “owes no duty to a recreational user to keep [its] park premises safe for entry and travel.” Early v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 2016-Ohio-7208, ¶ 2.
The case involved a visitor at the Malabar Farms Parks, which is a park operated by the Department. The visitor “fell off the curb while exiting or returning to the Park Visitation Center to dispose of a glass root beer bottle she purchased at the park and injured her left ankle requiring surgery to repair.” Early at ¶ 1.
The court ruled that, because the visitor was a recreational user, “[t]he agency had no duty to plaintiff to keep the premises, in this case a curb, safe.” Early at ¶ 3. “Recreational User Immunity” is an often overlooked form of immunity that applies to property owned and maintained by, among other entities, the state and political subdivisions – including boards of education. The immunity applies whenever a property owner grants permission to enter the land, without the payment of a fee, to engage in recreational pursuits. Under these circumstances, the property owner does not owe the user any duty to keep the property safe.
Governmental entities should be aware of Recreational User Immunity as it may apply in circumstances where Political Subdivision Immunity does not. For instance, on August 11, 2016, we blogged about how a residential grade swing on a municipal playground could be a “physical defect” for purposes of Political Subdivision Immunity, divesting the governmental agency of immunity. To read that blog, please click here. Arguably, the municipality in that case could assert that Recreational User Immunity would apply despite the existence of a “physical defect” because individuals presumably do not pay a fee to use swings. As a result, governmental officials should consider the possible application of Recreational User Immunity when determining whether to grant permission to the public to use property and whether to charge a fee for that permission.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
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.