MetroParks’ immunity sinks pothole lawsuit

YOUNGSTOWN -- Three appeals court judges have ruled in favor of the Mill Creek MetroParks in a lawsuit filed by a Boardman man who suffered serious injuries June 22, 2019, after hitting a pothole on Chestnut Hill Drive in Mill Creek Park.

The ruling, issued last week from judges in the the Circleville area south of Columbus, states that George F. Farris suffered broken ribs and a hemothorax, which is a collection of blood between the chest wall and the lung. Chestnut Hill Drive runs from near Scholl Recreation Area on Bears Den Road south to Lanterman's Mill.

The appeals panel found that the MetroParks was protected under the recreational-user-liability statute and reversed the decision of Judge Anthony Donofrio of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court and his magistrate, Nicole Alexander, and sent it back to them to issue a ruling consistent with the appellate decision.

Farris' lawsuit stated he was wearing a helmet and biking to the Garden Cafe in Fellows Riverside Gardens to meet someone when his bicycle struck a "cavernous pothole," throwing him from the bicycle and causing injuries such as a "blow to the head, broken ribs, a punctured lung" as well as bruises and cuts. Farris said he did not see the pothole because the area was in shade.

The suit alleged that the MetroParks was at fault for not fixing the pothole and / or failing to warn the public of the danger the pothole posed. He sought monetary damages.

In May 2022, the Metroparks asked Alexander and the judge she works for, Donofrio, to issue a summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit -- but they denied the motion. Summary judgment is a decision without need of a trial.

The MetroParks appealed, which led to last week's decision.

The MetroParks said the case should be dismissed on summary judgment because the Metroparks are "immune from liability" under the "recreational-user immunity statute, the political subdivision immunity statute" and because the pothole was "open and obvious."

The court disagreed, saying the area where the accident occurred is a "paved, two-lane roadway ... open for various modes of travel including vehicular traffic. Were this accident to have happened somewhere other than a roadway, it is likely that the recreational-user immunity statute would apply," the ruling stated.

The appeals panel stated that the recreational-user immunity part of Ohio law was created "to encourage owners of premises suitable for recreational pursuits to open their land to public use without worry of liability." It cited a part of the statute whereby the owner of the land does not "owe any duty to a recreational user to keep the premises safe for entry or use."

The appeals ruling stated that the judges agreed with a Cleveland-area ruling that found the Cleveland Metroparks deserved recreational-user immunity.

The appeals panel found that Chestnut Hill Drive in Mill Creek Park met the definition of "premises" that was required to provide the park district with immunity from liability. "Chestnut Hill Drive is entirely located with the park district" and "serves as a route to various attractions and parking lots within the park ... and the roadway is maintained by the park district," the ruling states.

It quoted from testimony from Aaron Young, MetroParks executive director, who referred to Chestnut Hill connecting with a public roadway (Canfield Road) on its southern end. The record did not indicate whether Chestnut Hill connected to a public road on the north end, the ruling stated.

But, "Young referred to Chestnut Hill Drive as a paved service road and stated that although it can accommodate both northbound and southbound traffic, it is actually closed by the park staff to all forms of travel in the winter in order to alleviate the amount of snow plowing that must be done by the park."

This case is complicated in that Chestnut Hill is used both by motorists and recreational users, the ruling noted.

"But that does not necessarily change the recreational character of the property, nor should it remove the immunity afforded to owners of properties the are held open to the public free of charge for recreational purposes," the ruling states.

Farris argued that he was "simply traveling on his bicycle to a for-profit restaurant in the park (The Garden Cafe) and was not engaged in a recreational activity. Instead, he argues, he was a business invitee "to which Mill Creek owed a duty of care," the ruling states.

The ruling found it interesting, however, that Farris stated in a deposition that he "actually drove his vehicle to the park, parked it in a parking lot, took his bicycle out of his car and from there started riding his bicycle on Chestnut Hill Drive.

"He explained during his deposition that while he normally rides his bicycle on the hike and bike trails located within the park, he decided to take a different route to the restaurant because he was running ahead of schedule. We find this description of Farris' activity to be more akin to recreation than nonrecreational travel," the ruling states.

Farris has 30 days to file a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court.

The appeals court panel, consisting of judges Jason Smith, Peter Abele and Michel Hess, heard oral arguments March 30 and rendered its decision Thursday.