Main v. Gym X-Treme, 2012 Ohio 1315 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County Mar.

27, 2012)

Judicial History The trial court found in favor of the defendant, namely Gym X-treme, that they were not liable for the plaintiffs because the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk bars the plaintiff from bringing a claim of negligence as a matter of law. Facts On February 10, 2007 Brenna Main attended a birthday party at Gym X-Treme. While using a gymnastic spring floor, she fell and broke her arm. Issue Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Gym X-Treme based on the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk? a) Was there a genuine issue of material fact? Rules Summary judgment is appropriate only where: (1) no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) viewing the evidence most strongly in favor the nonmoving party, reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, that conclusion being adverse to the non-moving party. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978). To establish a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must show the existence of a duty, breach of the duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677, 680, 1998 Ohio 602, 693 N.E.2d 271 (1998). Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, a plaintiff who voluntarily engages in a recreational activity or sporting event assumes the inherent risks of that activity and cannot recover for injuries sustained in engaging in the activity unless the defendant acted recklessly or intentionally in causing the injures. Schnetz v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 195 Ohio App.3d 207, 2011 Ohio 3927.

Analysis The risk of injury is intrinsic to certain recreational activities such as gymnastics, and by participating in the activity, the plaintiff consents to the risks. Whether the plaintiff is ignorant of the risks, does not fully appreciate the risks, or the risks are undertaken by child or adult is irrelevant. Primary assumption of the risk is applicable here and as such, the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.

Conclusion The Tenth Appellate District of Court of Appeals of Ohio found that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant when they found there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the liability of Gym X-Treme because the plaintiff is barred from bringing a negligence claim in which the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk applies. The judgment is affirmed.