As used in sections 1533.18 and 1533.181 of the Revised Code:
(A) "Premises" means 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.
(B) "Recreational user" means 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 owned lands, to enter upon premises to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, or swim, or to operate a snowmobile, all-purpose vehicle, or four-wheel drive motor vehicle, or to engage in other recreational pursuits.
(C) "All-purpose vehicle" has the same meaning as in section 4519.01 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 74
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Pauley v. City of Circleville, 2013 Ohio 4541 (Ohio 2013).
Pauley v. City of Circleville, 2013 Ohio 4541 (Ohio 2013). · cites it 22ד” {¶ 2} Under the recreational-user statutes (R.C. 1533.18 and 1533.181), property owners who open their premises to recreational users free of charge are immune from liability for injuries suffered by recreational users while they are engaged in a recreational activity.”
Combs v. Ohio Dept. of Nat. Resources, Div. of Parks & Rec. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1565 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 10ד4 January Term, 2016 The Recreational User Statute {¶ 11} In 1963, the General Assembly enacted the recreational user statute, R.C. 1533.18 et seq., Am.H.B. No. 179, 130 Ohio Laws 423, 1638, “to encourage owners of premises suitable for recreational pursuits to open their land…”
Johnson v. Vill. of New London, 521 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 7דAppellant argues that a political subdivision, such as appellee herein, *62 has no statutory immunity pursuant to R.C. 1533.18 and 1533.181. 2 While we agree that appellee has no direct statutory immunity pursuant to R.”
Light v. Ohio Univ., 502 N.E.2d 611 (Ohio 1986). · cites it 4דR.C. 1533.18(B) reads: “ ‘Recreational user’ means 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 thereof, to enter upon…”
Loyer v. Buchholz, 526 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 7ד” R.C. 1533.18 defines the terms “premises” and “recreational user” as follows: “As used in sections 1533.”
Miller v. City of Dayton, 537 N.E.2d 1294 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 5ד“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…”
McGuire v. Lorain, 2011 Ohio 3887 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8ד” R.C. 1533.18(B). {¶5} The City has argued that parade participants are recreational users under Section 1533.”
Fetherolf v. State, Dept. of Nat. Resources, 454 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5דThe Court of Claims of Ohio erred in holding as a matter of law that plaintiff-appellant’s claim of willful and wanton misconduct against the state was barred by Ohio Revised Code Sections 1533.18 and 1533.181. “II. The Court of Claims of Ohio erred in not holding that the…”
Sorrell v. Ohio Dep't of Nat. Resources, 532 N.E.2d 722 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 6ד181 of the Revised Code: “(A) ‘Premises’ means all privately-owned lands, ways, waters, and any buildings and structures thereon, and all state-owned lands, ways, and waters leased to a private person, firm, organization, or corporation, including any buildings and structures…”
Est. of Finley v. Cleveland Metroparks, 937 N.E.2d 645 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4דAdditionally, we have held that the statute includes a roadway within the Metroparks system as a “premises” within the meaning of R.C. 1533.18. Milliff v. Cleveland Metroparks Sys.”
Combs v. Ohio Dept. of Nat. Resources, Div. of Parks & Rec. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1565 (Ohio 2016). “4 January Term, 2016 The Recreational User Statute {¶ 11} In 1963, the General Assembly enacted the recreational user statute, R.C. 1533.18 et seq., Am.H.B. No. 179, 130 Ohio Laws 423, 1638, “to encourage owners of premises suitable for recreational pursuits to open their land…”
Pauley v. City of Circleville, 2013 Ohio 4541 (Ohio 2013). “” {¶ 2} Under the recreational-user statutes (R.C. 1533.18 and 1533.181), property owners who open their premises to recreational users free of charge are immune from liability for injuries suffered by recreational users while they are engaged in a recreational activity.”
Johnson v. Vill. of New London, 521 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 1988). “Appellant argues that a political subdivision, such as appellee herein, *62 has no statutory immunity pursuant to R.C. 1533.18 and 1533.181. 2 While we agree that appellee has no direct statutory immunity pursuant to R.”
Pauley v. City of Circleville, 2013 Ohio 4541 (Ohio 2013). “” {¶ 2} Under the recreational-user statutes (R.C. 1533.18 and 1533.181), property owners who open their premises to recreational users free of charge are immune from liability for injuries suffered by recreational users while they are engaged in a recreational activity.”
Light v. Ohio Univ., 502 N.E.2d 611 (Ohio 1986). “R.C. 1533.18(B) reads: “ ‘Recreational user’ means 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 thereof, to enter upon…”
Loyer v. Buchholz, 526 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio 1988). “” R.C. 1533.18 defines the terms “premises” and “recreational user” as follows: “As used in sections 1533.”
McGuire v. Lorain, 2011 Ohio 3887 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “” R.C. 1533.18(B). {¶5} The City has argued that parade participants are recreational users under Section 1533.”
Fetherolf v. State, Dept. of Nat. Resources, 454 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). “The Court of Claims of Ohio erred in holding as a matter of law that plaintiff-appellant’s claim of willful and wanton misconduct against the state was barred by Ohio Revised Code Sections 1533.18 and 1533.181. “II. The Court of Claims of Ohio erred in not holding that the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.