Pressler v. U

Ohio Court of Appeals

Pressler v. U

590 N.E.2d 873, 70 Ohio App. 3d 204, 7 Ohio App. Unrep. 306, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 4617

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 5, 1990

DocketNo. 59259.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 590 N.E.2d 873 (Pressler v. U) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pressler v. U, 590 N.E.2d 873, 70 Ohio App. 3d 204, 7 Ohio App. Unrep. 306, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 4617 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellants were injured during a yacht race with appellee. Appellant sued appellees but appellants alleged only negligence. Summary judgment was granted for appellee. Appellants raise the following assignments of error:

I

UNDER SECTION 2315.19, THE OHIO REVISED CODE, THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOES NOT BAR THE PLAINTIFFS' RECOVERY.

II

IF EVIDENCE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK WAS FOUND, THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE TRIER OF FACT, PURSUANT TO R.C. 2315.19(B), AND THE REQUIRED FINDINGS MADE.

Ill

MATERIAL FACT ISSUES EXIST AS TO THE PROXIMATE CAUSE AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE EMOTIONAL INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFFS.

As the assignments of error are related, we shall address them together.

"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 partici-pant's actions were either 'reckless' or 'intentional' as defined in Sections 500 and 8A of the Restatement of Torts 2d." Marchetti v. Kalish (1990), 53 Ohio St. 3d 95 (syllabus). 1 The collision occurred during an ordinary risk: passing or maneuvering during a race. The appellants' primary assumption of the risk bars their claims. R.C. 2315.19(B) is inapplicable to primary assumption of the risk.

The assignments of error are overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

KRUPANSKY, P.J., MATIA, J., and PARRINO, J., concur. Sitting by Assignment: Judge Thomas J. Parrino, Retired, of the Eighth District Court of Appeals.

1

See also Thompson v. McNeill (1990), 53 Ohio St. 3d 102 (syllabus) which states:

"Between participants in a sporting event, only injuries caused by intentional conduct, or in some instances reckless misconduct, may give rise to a cause of action. There is no liability for injuries caused by negligent conduct. (Marchetti v. Kalish [1990], 53 Ohio St. 3d 95, _N.E. 2d_, approved and followed.)

"A player who injures another player in the course of a sporting event by conduct that is a foreseeable, customary part of the sport cannot be held liable for negligence because no duty is owed to protect the victim from that conduct."

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appellants were injured during a yacht race with appellee. Appellant sued appellees but appellants alleged only negligence. Summary judgment was granted for appellee. Appellants raise the following assignments of error:

I

UNDER SECTION 2315.19, THE OHIO REVISED CODE, THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOES NOT BAR THE PLAINTIFFS' RECOVERY.

II

IF EVIDENCE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK WAS FOUND, THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE TRIER OF FACT, PURSUANT TO R.C. 2315.19(B), AND THE REQUIRED FINDINGS MADE.

Ill

MATERIAL FACT ISSUES EXIST AS TO THE PROXIMATE CAUSE AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE EMOTIONAL INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFFS.

As the assignments of error are related, we shall address them together.

"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 partici-pant's actions were either 'reckless' or 'intentional' as defined in Sections 500 and 8A of the Restatement of Torts 2d." Marchetti v. Kalish (1990), 53 Ohio St. 3d 95 (syllabus). 1 The collision occurred during an ordinary risk: passing or maneuvering during a race. The appellants' primary assumption of the risk bars their claims. R.C. 2315.19(B) is inapplicable to primary assumption of the risk.

The assignments of error are overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

KRUPANSKY, P.J., MATIA, J., and PARRINO, J., concur. Sitting by Assignment: Judge Thomas J. Parrino, Retired, of the Eighth District Court of Appeals.

1

See also Thompson v. McNeill (1990), 53 Ohio St. 3d 102 (syllabus) which states:

"Between participants in a sporting event, only injuries caused by intentional conduct, or in some instances reckless misconduct, may give rise to a cause of action. There is no liability for injuries caused by negligent conduct. (Marchetti v. Kalish [1990], 53 Ohio St. 3d 95, _N.E. 2d_, approved and followed.)

"A player who injures another player in the course of a sporting event by conduct that is a foreseeable, customary part of the sport cannot be held liable for negligence because no duty is owed to protect the victim from that conduct."

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 N.E.2d 873, 70 Ohio App. 3d 204, 7 Ohio App. Unrep. 306, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 4617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pressler-v-u-ohioctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack