Miller v. City of Dayton
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtH. Brown, J.
The primary issue is whether Miller was a “recreational user” at the time of his injury. “Recreational user” is defined in R.C. 1533.18 (B) as “a person to whom permission has been granted, without the payment of a fee or consideration to the owner, lessee, or occupant of premises * * * to enter upon premises to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, swim, or engage in other recreational pursuits.” For the following reasons we find Miller was a recreational user and reverse the court of appeals.
A
In determining whether a person is a recreational user under R.C. 1533.18 (B), the analysis should focus on…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Light v. Ohio UniversityOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Johnson v. Village of New LondonOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Marrek v. Cleveland Metroparks Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Loyer v. BuchholzOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Fryberger v. Lake Cable Recreation Ass'nOhio Supreme Court · 1988
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Scrapchansky v. Town of PlainfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Prince v. City of Apache JunctionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
- Johnson v. Rapid City Softball Ass'nSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
- Herman v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
- Hanley v. StateSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2003
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.