In the case of Combs v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 2016-Ohio-1565, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that “recreational user immunity” does not apply to the negligence of a property owner or the owner’s employees.
The controversy occurred when an employee of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources used a boom mower to cut weeds and brush along the lakeshore of a state owned park. One of the mower’s blades struck a stone, throwing it into plaintiff’s eye and face.
Ordinarily, recreational user immunity protects the owner of any premise who grants permission to individuals to enter the land, without the payment of a fee, in order to engage in recreational pursuits.
However, in the Combs case, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified that recreational user immunity “precludes liability only for injuries that arise from a defect in the premises” and does not apply to a negligently inflicted injury unrelated to a condition of the premises – i.e., negligently mowing brush.
This case, along with other cases rejecting “political subdivision immunity” for injuries involving other lawn mower projectiles, provides a practical lesson for school officials: Do not operate lawn mowers near students – or anyone for that matter –because the school district may, in all likelihood, not be covered by any form of immunity – either political subdivision immunity or recreational user immunity – if injuries result.
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.