Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Landowner Liability

Recreational Use Exception to Landowner Liability

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Getsy v. Eastham, No. 2008-T-0032, 2008 WL 5274850 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2008), the Ohio Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff's negligence claim was barred by the statutory recreational use exception to landowner liability.

Background

Getsy and other coworkers purchased beer and went to Eastham's home one afternoon, and Eastham took Getsy on a ride on his new Yamaha Rhino. Id. at *1. The Rhino flipped over and Getsy's leg was broken. Id. Getsy brought a negligence action against Eastham, but the trial court granted Eastham's motion for summary judgment after finding that the men were engaged in a recreational activity. Id.

Arguments

Getsy argued that the Rhino was not a recreational vehicle and there was no mutual plan to engage in a recreational activity, and therefore the act of riding the Rhino was not within the definition of engaging in recreational activity. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

Ohio's recreational user statute, R.C. 1533.181, provides that a landowner does not owe a duty to a recreational user to keep his premises safe and is not liable for injuries caused by a recreational user. Id. at *2. "Recreational user" is defined as "a person to whom permission has been granted, without the payment of a fee or consideration to the owner . . . to enter upon premises to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, or swim, or to operate a snowmobile, all-purpose vehicle, or four-wheel drive motor vehicle, or to engage in other recreational pursuits." Id. "All-purpose vehicle" includes "vehicles commonly known as all terrain vehicles." Id. The court explained that the main issue was not how to classify the Rhino, but rather whether the parties were engaged in a recreational or sports activity. Id. The court found that there was no disagreement as to the Rhino's intended use at the time of the accident, and it stated that the evidence "epitomizes the classic definition of 'recreation,' which is the 'refreshment of strength and spirits after work'"; therefore, it affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the defendant. Id. at *3. A dissenting justice opined that the Rhino was a utility vehicle rather than a recreational vehicle, and stated that summary judgment was not appropriate because a material, disputed fact existed regarding whether the parties were involved in a sport or merely taking a ride. Id. at *3-4.

The case was decided on December 19, 2008.