MILLER v. CITY OF DAYTON

No. 88-136.

42 Ohio St. 3d 113 (1989)

MILLER ET AL., APPELLEES, v. CITY OF DAYTON, APPELLANT, ET AL.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided April 26, 1989.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jablinski, Folino, Roberts, Schultz & Martin, Ronald E. Schultz and Brian M. Roberts, for appellees.

J. Anthony Sawyer, director of law, Freund, Freeze & Arnold, Neil F. Freund and Jane M. Lynch, for appellant.


H. 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...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases