Legal Opinion
LiCause v. City of Canton
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 26, 1989No. Nos. 88-84 and 88-506PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.
We initially note that appellees in both cases were found to be recreational users. R.C. 1533.181 states:
“(A) No owner, lessee, or occupant of premises:
“(1) Owes any duty to a recreational user to keep the premises safe for entry or use;
“(2) Extends any assurance to a recreational user, through the act of giving permission, that the premises are safe for entry or use;
“(3) Assumes responsibility for or incurs liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of a recreational user.”
Although not originally enacted to provide immunity with regard to public land, R.C. 1533.181 has…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Taylor v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- Enghauser Manufacturing Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- Johnson v. Village of New LondonOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Moss v. Dept. of Natural ResourcesOhio Supreme Court · 1980
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Scrapchansky v. Town of PlainfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Miller v. City of DaytonOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Pauley v. City of CirclevilleOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- Combs v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Parks & Recreation (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- Pippin v. M.A. Hauser Enterprises, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1996
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.