Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court considered whether the city of Reynoldsburg and Truro Township were immune from liability for the death of a spectator struck by fireworks shrapnel. The court held that Ohio’s recreational-user statute did not immunize Reynoldsburg and that sponsoring the fireworks display was a proprietary rather than governmental function under R.C. Chapter 2744. It also held that summary judgment was inappropriate for Truro Township because factual issues remained regarding the township’s responsibility for keeping the park free from nuisance. The court reversed the appellate judgment and remanded for enforcement of the parties’ settlement agreements.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Ohio's recreational-user statute, R.C. 1533.181, immunized Reynoldsburg from liability for injuries caused by fireworks shrapnel during the display.
- Whether sponsoring a fireworks display was a governmental or proprietary function under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- Whether the statutory exception for negligent performance of proprietary functions, R.C. 2744.02(B)(2), potentially applied to Reynoldsburg.
- Whether Truro Township's inspection of the fireworks display was a governmental function and whether the public-ground nuisance exception, R.C. 2744.02(B)(3), potentially applied.
- Whether summary judgment was appropriate for either Reynoldsburg or Truro Township when factual issues remained concerning negligence, nuisance, and the location of Huber Park within Truro Township.
Holdings
- R.C. 1533.181 did not immunize Reynoldsburg because the injury was caused by fireworks shrapnel rather than by the condition of the premises, and Ryll's presence in the spectator area was not an act causing the injury.
- Sponsoring a fireworks display is a proprietary function, not a governmental function, under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- Reynoldsburg was not entitled to summary judgment because R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) potentially imposed liability for negligent performance of a proprietary function, no R.C. 2744.03 defense applied as a matter of law, and factual issues existed concerning whether Reynoldsburg negligently designated an inadequately distant spectator area.
- Truro Township's inspection of the fireworks display was a governmental function.
- Truro Township was not entitled to summary judgment because factual issues remained concerning whether Huber Park was within Truro Township and whether the township failed to keep the park free from nuisance under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3).
Key quotations
“The cause of the injury in this case had nothing to do with “premises” as defined in R.C. 1533.18(A).” (¶ 15)
“In short, sponsoring a fireworks display is not a governmental function, it is a proprietary function.” (¶ 24)
“Satisfying this statutory requirement does not necessarily relieve Truro Township from liability for “failure to keep [Huber Park] free from nuisance.”” (¶ 38)
Factual background
Daniel Ryll was killed by shrapnel when a twelve-inch fireworks shell exploded inside its mortar tube during Reynoldsburg's July 4, 1996 fireworks display at Huber Park. Reynoldsburg placed the spectator safety area approximately 660 feet from the discharge area without consulting the licensed shooter about the fireworks' angulation or placement, although applicable NFPA standards called for an 840-foot distance for vertical twelve-inch shells. Truro Township inspected the site before installation but did not inspect the completed display or determine whether the fireworks had been buried according to applicable safety standards.
Procedural history
Daniel Ryll's estate sued after Ryll was killed by shrapnel during a municipal fireworks display. Reynoldsburg and Truro Township moved for summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity, but the trial court denied the motions. The court of appeals reversed, holding Reynoldsburg immune under Ohio's recreational-user statute and concluding that Truro Township could not be liable because the park was located in Reynoldsburg. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded for enforcement of the settlement agreements contingent on the summary-judgment rulings.
Remand instructions
The cause was remanded to the trial court to ensure enforcement of the settlement agreements between the estate and Reynoldsburg and between the estate and Truro Township.