 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gentry v. Craycraft2/11/2004
Torts - Personal injury action brought for injuries sustained while individual is a participant in or spectator at a sport or recreational activity - Age of participant or spectator and whether he or she was capable of appreciating the inherent risks is immaterial - Recovery dependent upon whether defendant's conduct was either reckless or intentional.
Submitted October 22, 2003, at the Clinton County Session
. On the evening of June 17, 1999, eleven-year-old Christopher Craycraft and nine-year-old Levi Gentry were building a chair in Craycraft's backyard. Levi's younger brother, Lucas Gentry, age four, watched from a distance of about two to three feet away, as the older boys took turns hammering nails into the chair. As Christopher began hammering the final nail, he placed the nail on the wood, and held it as he tapped twice. When the nail stood on its own, Christopher let the nail go and hammered a third time, a little harder than he had previously. The nail flew out of the chair and hit Lucas in the eye, causing him to sustain serious injuries.
. Lucas, by and through his parents, Bonnie and Mike Gentry, plaintiffs-appellees, filed suit against Christopher and his parents, Terry and Nancy Craycraft, defendants-appellants. The complaint alleged that Christopher negligently, intentionally, and/or recklessly hammered the nail into the chair, causing Lucas to sustain injuries.
. The Craycrafts filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Based upon our decision in Marchetti v. Kalish (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 559 N.E.2d 699, the court found that neither Christopher nor his parents could be held liable for Lucas's injuries, since the children had been involved in a recreational activity at the time of the accident and because there was no showing that Christopher had acted intentionally or recklessly. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded the cause for further proceedings. The court agreed that the boys were involved in a recreational activity, and found that Christopher did not act intentionally or recklessly. Nevertheless, the court concluded that Lucas could pursue a negligence action. It reasoned that Lucas was too young to have assumed the risk of injury and consequently could not be deemed a spectator to a recreational activity.
. The cause is before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal.
. This appeal concerns the standard of care owed to a young child injured in a recreational or sporting activity.
. In Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 559 N.E.2d 699, syllabus, we delineated the following standard: "Where individuals engage in recreational or sports activities, they assume the ordinary risks of the activity and cannot recover for any injury unless it can be shown that the other participant's actions were either `reckless' or `intentional' as defined in Sections 500 and 8A of the Restatement of Torts 2d." Id. at syllabus. In the companion case of Thompson v. McNeill (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 102, 559 N.E.2d 705, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus, we reiterated our holding in Marchetti and stated that where injuries are sustained in a sporting event, there is no liability for injuries caused by negligent conduct. Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. In Thompson, we included spectators within the scope of the rule. Id. at 104, 559 N.E.2d 705.
. At the time Lucas was injured, the children were involved in typical backyard play, which falls within the definition of a recreational activity. The parties further concede that Christopher did not act intentionally or recklessly in hammering the
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|