Korengel v. Little Miami Golf Ctr.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Winkler
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The court affirmed denial of summary judgment on negligence claims regarding tree maintenance and storm siren failure, but reversed and remanded on the reckless supervision claim regarding failure to warn, finding the Park District entitled to immunity on that theory.
Excerpt
COUNTY – PARK DISTRICT – TORT IMMUNITY: A park district is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of political subdivision immunity on two claims arising from an injury a 12-year-old boy sustained from a falling tree limb that struck him while he was golfing during a windstorm on the park district's golf course, even though the park district established entitlement to the general grant of immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), where issues of material fact exist as to whether the injury, which occurred on the grounds of a building used in connection with a government function, was caused at least in part by the negligence of the park district employees in failing to maintain the tree limb and/or failing to manually activate a storm siren, and was due to a physical defect—an unmaintained tree limb—on those grounds, as required for the physical-defect exception to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B)(4). [But see DISSENT: The physical-defect exception to immunity requires linkage between the physical defect and the employee negligence. The park district employees' alleged negligent failure to activate the storm siren is not related to the alleged defective tree limb and, resultantly, summary judgment should be granted to the park district on the failure-to-manually-activate-the-storm-siren claim.] Whether the danger from a defective tree is open and obvious to a 12 year old is not governed by the same standard that governs the determination of whether a park district's landscapers and arborists had constructive notice of the defect. A park district is entitled to summary judgment due to the immunity defense under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) for a claim of reckless supervision in the failure to warn a 12-year-old golfer of impending weather, because the record contains no facts demonstrating that other potential golfers were turned away due to the weather. A park district is not entitled to the benefit of the immunity defense under R.C. 2744.03(A)(3) or (5) with respect to
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.