Premises Liability Law

Premises Liability Law Library


Our Publications

Ohio Revised Code

Case Law

  • Classification System

    • Bennett v. Stanley -  Landowners owe a duty to foreseeable trespassing children to protect them from dangerous artificial conditions on the land.  

    • Andler v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. - A person attending a concert at a campground is an invitee for purposes of premises liability; even non-paying guests of paying invitees are considered invitees.  A grass-covered hole in the ground is not an open and obvious danger that would remove the landowner's duty of care to a property visitor.

  • Farm and Market Customers - Liability to "Invitees"

    • Snyder v. Myers -  A properly functioning hay drop that accidentally opened, causing the injury of a potential buyer of a hay rake, is not an unknown dangerous condition for purposes of premises liability. 

  • Other Persons on Property with Owner's Permission or Acquiescence - Liability to "Licensees"

    • Bennett v. Kroger Co. -   Kroger did not owe a duty of care to a woman who arrived at the store 30 minutes after it closed and was attacked in the parking lot.  The woman was not a business invitee since she arrived after store hours and Kroger therefore did not have a duty to protect her from all known and unknown dangers. 

    • Czepak v. Heiges - A landowner has a duty of care to a business invitee even if the landowner does not know that the invitee is on the premises when the injury occurs.

  • Liability to Trespassers

    • Williams v. Cook - A social guest at a house became a trespasser when he entered a closet in the house and exceeded the scope of the invitation; landowner was not responsible for harm resulting from the trespasser's action of finding a gun and harming another visitor.

    • State v. Hadley -  A landowner may use force against an intruder who is standing on porch and does not leave after demands by the landowner; the porch is considered part of the "castle" for purposes of the Castle Doctrine.

    • Bennett v. Stanley - Attractive nuisance doctrine extends also to adult trespassers who are injured while saving or rescuing a child that is suffering harm from dangerous artificial condition on the premises.

  • Social Guests

    • Jaronovic v. Iacofano - A staircase with no hand railing is an open and obvious danger and the owner of the premises had no duty to warn a property visitor about the danger.

    • Williams v. Cook - A social guest at a house became a trespasser when he entered a closet in the house and exceeded the scope of the invitation; landowner was not responsible for harm resulting from the trespasser's action of finding a gun and harming another property visitor.

  • Open and Obvious Doctrine/Defense

    • Sandrin v. Tobin - A partial ladder on a straw covered floor in a barn is an open and obvious danger for which a landowner has no duty to protect a property visitor.

    • Czepak v. Heiges - A rotten floor in a cabin is an open and obvious danger for which a landowner has no duty to protect the invitee.

    • Williamson v. Geeting - An oil pit was an open and obvious danger because it was not hidden or concealed and was discernible had the plaintiff looked where he was walking. 

  • Children

    • Bennett v. Stanley - The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to landowners in Ohio; landowners owe a duty to protect a foreseeable child trespasser from dangerous artificial conditions that attract the child to the land but for which the child cannot appreciate dangers posed by the condition.

    • Mayle v. McDonald Steep Corp. - A dam with a 15 foot wall is an open and obvious danger.  The attractive nuisance doctrine did not apply when a trespassing child jumped from the wall and drowned; the landowner was not liable for the child's death.

    • Ard v. Fawley -  Landowners owed no duty to a child because they did not know that the child was on their property when the injury happened and the child was a trespasser; past permission does not apply to the current situation.

    • Parker v. Patrick -  Children driving a John Deere gator are considered recreational users; the landowner did not owe a duty of care to keep the children safe and was not liable for the children's injuries.

    • Aponte v. Castor -  Landowner is not liable for harm to a child who left the house and went into the barn without permission and suffered injuries from the landowner's horse.   Attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply because a horse is not an artificial danger and it was not foreseeable to the landowner that the child would go into the horse's stall.

  • Recreational User's Statute

    • Konesky v. Wood Cty. Agricultural Soc. - The risk of being trampled by a runaway horse that came off a racetrack through a negligently placed or permitted gap in the fence was not an inherent risk of horse racing and primary assumption of the risk was inapplicable.

    • Combs v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources - The Ohio Department of Natural Resources was not immune under the recreational user statute, even though the plaintiff was a recreational user, because the rock thrown from the mower was not a defect in the premises.

    • Brumage v. Green -  Individual was engaged in a recreational activity at the time the ATV he was driving flipped and he was injured because the flipping of an ATV is an inherent risk of participating in the recreational activity of riding an ATV.

    • Brennan v. Schappacher - A hayride is a recreational activity for purposes of the Recreational User's Statute and the landowner is not liable for injuries suffered during hayride.

    • Gullet v. Willard Reservoir - A municipality was immune from liability sustained at a dock that was on a body of water. 

    • Stiner v. Dechant - The landowner dug drainage ditches in his field, causing the land to be raised a few feet. A snowmobile rider (with permission) used the land to ride. The rider hit the mound of dirt and was injured. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, which was that the landowner was not liable for the injuries because the snowmobile rider was a recreational user. The owner did not have to put up warnings about the land. 

    • Parker v. Patrick -  Children driving a John Deere gator are considered recreational users; the landowner did not owe a duty of care to keep the children safe and was not liable for the children's injuries.

  • Waivers/Releases

    • Swartzentruber v. Wee-K Corp. -  Court enforced a waiver and released a horse rental company from liability based upon the following language:  "The undersigned understands that Wee-K CORP cannot assume responsibility for any rider's safety since that depends upon the individual's skill and common sense. Therefore, the undersigned agrees that in consideration of the rental of said riding horse and related equipment he/she does voluntarily assume all risk of accident or damage to his or her person or property and hereby releases and all others associated with it, from any and all claims, demands, actions and causes of action of every kind and nature which he/she now has or might have arising out of any and all personal injuries, damages, expenses, and any loss or damage whatsoever resulting or to result from the rental of the horse and related equipment."

  • Liability to Repair Persons

    • Uhl v. Thomas - Landowner was not liable for the injury caused to a roofer working on repairing the roof of a barn. The barn "shifted" and caused the worker to be thrown onto a loft. The Court held that the landowner could not have known the barn was unsafe, and the danger was open and obvious to the worker.

  • Cabins and Barns

    • Czepak v. Heiges - A landowner still has a duty of care to a business invitee, even if the landowner does not know that the invitee is on the premises when the injury occurs. Evidence of a rotten floor in a cabin was enough to establish that the danger was open and obvious, thus the landowner did not owe a duty to protect the invitee against.

    • Snyder v. Myers -  Landowner has the duty to inspect the land to make sure that there are no dangerous conditions for which he or she is unaware. A properly functioning hay drop that accidentally opened, causing the injury of a potential buyer of a hay rake, was not found to be an unknown dangerous condition on the premises.

    • Uhl v. Thomas - Landowner was not liable for the injury caused to a roofer working on repairing the roof of a barn. The barn "shifted" and caused the worker to be thrown onto a loft. The Court held that the landowner could not have known the barn was unsafe, and the danger was open and obvious to the worker.

  • Lessor/Lessee

    • Martin v. Konstam - A landlord still owes a duty of care to a tenant when the tenant is in a common area under the control of the landlord. The example that this case presents is an elevator.

  • Ohio's Equine Activity Act

    • McGuire v. Jewett - While visitng a Chrismas tree farm, passengers on a horse drawn carriage were injured when the horse spooked and abruptly turned, tipping the wagon and ejecting the passengers. Summary judgment for the Christmas tree farm was improper because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the horse-drawn wagon was a vehicle as defined by statute. If the wagon was a vehicle and traveled on a "highway," then it was required to have brakes, which it did not.

    • Lawson v. Dutch Heritage Farms, Inc. - While a passenger on a horse-drawn buggy, a woman was injured when the horse reared and bolted towards the barn, flipping the buggy. A genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the owner of the buggy "made reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the equine activity participant's ability to safely engage in the equine activity given its state of knowledge of the horses's disposition."

    • Dennis v. Nickajack Farms, Ltd. - There was no finding of wanton misconduct when rider sustained injuries after being thrown off of a horse because the rider had been warned the horse had not been exercised that day, the rider had been warned numerous times to remove the spurs he was wearing and the rider knew of the inherent risks of riding the horse.

    • Graham v. Shamrock Stables - A woman injured when she was knocked to the ground by a horse spooked by a dog in the stable, cannot recover under O.R.C. 955.28 (owner of dogs liable for injuries they cause to others) because the Equine Activity Act considers an equine's reaction to other animals as one of the inherent risks of equine activity.

    • Allison v. Johnson - A spectator of an equine activity is a participant for which the equine activity sponsor has no liability.

    • Gibson v. Donahue - The Equine Activity Act did not apply because the plaintiff was not engaged in an equine activity at the time of the accident.

    • Smith v. Landfair - The Equine Activity Act applies and prevents liability where  a person steps in to help handle a horse and receives injuries from the horse.

    • Markowitz v. Bainbridge Equestrian Center - The Equine Activity Act will uphold a waiver that releases the owner from liability for harm caused by the unpredictable nature of spooked horses.

  • Immunity for Political Subdivisions

    • Burya v. Lake Metroparks Bd. of Park Comm'rs - A family attended a haunted hayride, an event conducted by the Lake Metroparks, and were injured when the wagon detached from the tractor and rolled into a tree. Even through Lake Metroparks was a political subdivision, the court did not grant summary judgment in it's favor because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the injury occured in a political subdivision's building or on the grounds of a political subdivision's building.

Links to Other Resources

Ohio Agricultural Law Blog