McCord v. Ohio Div. of Parks & Rec., 375 N.E.2d 50 (Ohio 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
McCord v. Ohio Div. of Parks & Rec., 375 N.E.2d 50 (Ohio 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …all privately owned lands, ways, and waters, and any buildings and structures thereon, and all privately owned and state-owned lands, ways, and waters leased to a private person, firm, or organization, including any buildings and structures thereon. ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …privately-owned lands, ways, and waters, and buildings and structures thereon, ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2002 · …r.c. 2743.02(a) does not create a new right of action against the state, but places the state upon the same level as any private party. ✓
104 citation events (39 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Schafer v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (ohioctapp, 2022-05-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schafer v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
Ohio Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
No. 29271, 2022-Ohio-1116, ¶ 28 . {¶ 12} R.C. 1533.181(A), Ohio's recreational user statute, states as follows: 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. {¶ 13} R.C. 1533.18(A) provides the following definition: " 'Premises' means all privately own…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vos v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
McCord v. Div. of Parks and Recreation, 54 Ohio St.2d 72, 74 (1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hughey v. Grand River Dam Authority (2×)
Okla. · 1995 · confidence medium
D., 415 N.W.2d 505, 508 (N.D. 1987); McCord v. Ohio Div. of Parks & Recreation, 54 Ohio St.2d 72 , 375 N.E.2d 50, 52 (1978) (these cases hold that governmental tort liability is governed by the same principles that apply to actions involving private parties and that governmental entities are put on the same footing as private tort defendants).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Phillips v. Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
“It is clear that, under these statutes as plainly construed, the state, when viewed as if a private party, owes no duty to a recreational user of its land, such as appellee, who has paid no fee or valuable consideration.” (Footnote omitted.) McCord v. Division of Parks and Recreation (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 72, at 74 [ 8 O.O.3d 77 ], Appellants argue, however, that their interrogatories were constructed to elicit information which would render appellee liable, regardless of the status of appellants.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reese v. Ohio State University Hospitals
Ohio · 1983 · confidence medium
As this court indicated in McCord v. Division of Parks and Recreation (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 72, 74 [ 8 O.O.3d 77 ], “R.C. 2743.02 (A) does not create a new right of action against the state, but places the state upon the same level as any private party.” The language of R.C. 2743.02 (A)(1) itself negates the creation of a new right.
examined Cited "see" Combs v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Parks & Recreation (Slip Opinion) (4×)
Ohio · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCord v. Ohio Div. of Parks & Recreation, 54 Ohio St.2d 72, 74 , 375 N.E.2d 50 (1978).
discussed Cited "see" Pauley v. Circleville (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See LiCause v. City of Canton, 42 Ohio St.3d 109, 111-112 , 537 N.E.2d 1298 (1989), citing Moss v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 62 Ohio St.2d 138 , 404 N.E.2d 742 (1980), and McCord v. Division of Parks & Rec., 54 Ohio St.2d 72 , 375 N.E.2d 50 (1978). {¶ 19} R.C. 1533.18(B) defines a “recreational user” as follows: [A] person to whom permission has been granted, without the payment of a fee or consideration to the owner, lessee, or occupant of premises, other than a fee or consideration paid to the state or any agency of the state, or a lease payment or fee paid to the owner of privately o…
discussed Cited "see" Graham v. Like Milton State Park (2×)
Ohio Ct. Cl. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCord v. Division of Parks and Recreation (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 72 , 8 O.O. 3d 77, 375 N.E. 2d 50 . 1533.181(A)(1), which provides, inter alia, that an owner of premises owes no duty to a recreational user to keep the premises safe for entry or use, applies to the state.
examined Cited "see" Kendrick v. Cleveland Metroparks Board of Commissioners (3×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCord v. Div. of Parks & Recreation (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 72 , 8 O.O.3d 77 , 375 N.E.2d 50 .
examined Cited "see" Ashland County Board of Commissioners v. Ohio Department of Taxation (3×)
Ohio · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCord v. Dept. of Natural Resources (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 72 , 8 O.O.3d 77 , 375 N.E.2d 50 .
examined Cited "see" Rankey v. Arlington Board of Education (3×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCord v. Ohio Div. of Parks & Recreation (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 72 , 8 O.O.3d 77 , 375 N.E.2d 50 .
discussed Cited "see" Monteville v. Terrebonne Par. Con. Gov't (2×)
La. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCord v. Ohio Division of Parks & Recreation, 54 Ohio St.2d 72 , 375 N.E.2d 50 (1978); Sublett v. United States, 688 S.W.2d 328 (Ky.1985) (applying Federal Tort Claims Act to Kentucky immunity statute); Trimblett v. State, 156 N.J.Super. 291 , 383 A.2d 1146 (1977); Anderson v. City of Springfield, 406 Mass. 632 , 549 N.E.2d 1127 (1990); Commonwealth Dep't of Environmental Resources v. Auresto, 511 Pa. 73 , 511 A.2d 815 (1986).
discussed Cited "see" Marrek v. Cleveland Metroparks Board of Commissioners (2×)
Ohio · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCord v. Div. of Parks & Recreation (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 72 [ 8 O.O.3d 77 ].
cited Cited "see" Moss v. Dept. of Natural Resources
Ohio · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCord, supra. R.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mitchell v. Blue Ash (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., McCord v. Ohio Div. of Parks & Recreation (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 72, 74 , 375 N.E.2d 50 (recreational-user immunity applicable where alleged negligence of lifeguard led to child’s drowning in a public lake). 7 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." John Pinter v. George C. Young, Bernard B. Hurst, State of Ohio, Department of Transportation (2×)
6th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., McCord v. Ohio Division of Parks & Recreation, 54 Ohio St.2d 72 , 375 N.E.2d 50 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McCord
v.
Ohio Division of Parks and Recreation
No. 77-610.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Apr 19, 1978.
375 N.E.2d 50
1978 Ohio LEXIS 577
Messrs. Rogers, Horton & Forbes, Mr. Earle G. Horton and Mrs. Mabel M. Jasper, for appellee., Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Melvin D. Weinstein, for appellant.
Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Locher, Neill, Sweeney.
Cited by 40 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Prior to the enactment of the Court of Claims Act, R. C. Chapter 2743, the state enjoyed immunity from tort liability. The state has provided statutory means of adjudicating certain claims against it under R. C. 2743.02(A), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

“The state hereby waives its immunity from liability[*74] and consents to be sued, and have its liability determined, in the court of claims created in this chapter in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties, subject to the limitations set forth in this chapter.”

One such rule of law “applicable to suits between private parties” is R. C. 1533.181(A), which provides that:

“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.”
“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 enter upon premises to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, swim, or engage in other recreational pursuits.”

It is clear that, under these statutes as plainly construed, the state, when viewed as if a private party, owes no duty to a recreational user of its land, such as appellee, who has paid no fee or valuable consideration.*

R. C 2743.02(A) does not create a new right of action against the state, but places the state upon the same level as any private party. Since R. C. 1533.181(A) precludes recovery against any landowner, the state cannot be held liable as a matter of law. If the immunity which the state has historically enjoyed is to be lifted further, it must be accomplished by the General Assembly and not by this court.

[*75] Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must he reversed and the order of the Court of Claims dismissing appellee’s complaint reinstated.

Judgment reversed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. BrowN, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur. Celebrezze, J., dissents.

Statutes similar to R. C. 1633.181, which abrogate the common law and do not place any duty toward recreational users upon landowners, predicate liability upon the payment of a fee and exist in a majority of the states. See Hamilton v. United States (E. D. Va. 1974), 371 F. Supp. 230; Garfield v. United States (W. D. Wisc. 1969), 297 F. Supp. 891.