Main Menu
Enter at Your Own Risk: How much immunity does Ohio's Recreational User Statute confer?
Posted in Litigation

In case you missed it, Bingham Greenebaum Doll attorney E. Chase Dressman recently co-authored an article that has been published by the Ohio Bar Association.  In the article, published in the Association’s Summer 2012 Litigation Newsletter, Dressman discusses Ohio’s Recreational User Statute and potential confusion surrounding a 2005 amendment to it.

The article details the statute and its 2005 amendment, noting that the amendment’s alterations to the definition of a “recreational user” arguably drastically extend the statute’s grant of immunity in circumstances where an entrance fee is paid.  Such an extension would expressly overrule decades of established Ohio jurisprudence, leading Dressman to call for greater clarification of the amendment’s effect. An excerpt of the article is below. Click here to see the Summer 2012 OBA Litigation Newsletter (article begins on Page 5). 

Excerpt from “Enter at your own risk: How much immunity does Ohio’s Recreational User Statute confer?”

While the amended statute’s language still states that a “recreational user” is someone who has not paid a “fee or consideration,” the new language carves out an exception when a “lease payment or fee” is paid.  The scope and meaning of this new exception is open to debate.  One interpretation is that the 2005 amendment merely sought to afford protection to defendant land owners who had received lease payments or lease fees from injured recreational visitors.  A contrary interpretation is that the statute now applies if any type of fee was paid by an injured recreational visitor.

Click here for the Ohio Bar Association Summer 2012 Litigation Newsletter




Recent Posts




Back to Page