Crozier v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Crozier v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 2006-Ohio-7161.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO RICK CROZIER : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-11621-AD DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES : MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} On June 29, 2005, plaintiff, Rick Crozier, sustained property damage to his boat when the bottom of his watercraft struck a submerged dredge pipe at the Mary Jane Thurston State Park Marina, defendant, a park Department facility of maintained Natural and operated Resources by ( DNR ). Specifically, plaintiff related the submerged dredge damaged the entire transmission of his 1977 Correct Craft Ski Nautique boat. Plaintiff explained the dredge pipe was supposed to be anchored to the bottom of the waterway and created a hazard to navigation at the designated exit from the boat launching area. asserted the damage to his boat was proximately Plaintiff caused by negligence on the part of defendant in not keeping the boat launching exit area free from hazards. Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $1,542.54, his cost for boat repair resulting from the June 29, 2005, incident. filing fee was paid. The {¶ 2} Defendant has denied liability for plaintiff s damage based on the fact plaintiff was a recreational user of DNR premises at the time of the property damage occurrence. Defendant noted the launching facilities at Mary Jane Thurston State Park Marina are open to the public free of charge and plaintiff paid no fee to launch his boat. {¶ 3} Since this incident occurrence at Mary Jane Thurston State Park defendant qualifies as the owner of the premises under R.C. 1533.18, et seq. {¶ 4} Premises and recreational user are defined in R.C. 1533.18 as follows: {¶ 5} (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. {¶ 6} (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, swim, operate a snowmobile or all-purpose vehicle, or engage in other recreational pursuits. {¶ 7} R.C. 1533.181(A) states: {¶ 8} (A) No owner, lessee, or occupant of premises: {¶ 9} (1) Owes any duty to a recreational user to keep the premises safe for entry or use; {¶ 10} (2) Extends any assurance to a recreational user, through the act of giving permission, that the premises are safe for entry or use; {¶ 11} (3) Assumes responsibility for or incurs liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act of a recreational user. {¶ 12} The state owes no duty to recreational users of state parks, who pay no fee or consideration for admission, to keep the premises safe for entry or use. of Natural Resources (1985), 26 Phillips v. Ohio Dept. Ohio App. 3d 77. The recreational user statute applies under the facts of the present claim. {¶ 13} Plaintiff is clearly a paid no fee to enter the premises. recreational user, having Owing no duty to plaintiff, defendant clearly has no liability under a negligence theory. Even if defendant s conduct would be characterized as affirmative creation of hazard, it still has immunity from liability under the recreational user statute. Sanker v. Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1982), 81-04478-AD; Howard v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (2002), 2001-11146-AD; Reidel v. Department of Natural Resources (2005), 2005-06384-AD. {¶ 14} occurred There is no dispute that plaintiff s property damage on state-owned recreational pursuit. property while he was engaged in a Pursuant to R.C. 1533.18 and 1533.181, the court finds that defendant owed no duty of care to keep the premises safe for use by plaintiff, and, consequently, defendant is not liable negligence. for See plaintiff s Meiser v. Ohio injuries Dept. of under a Natural theory of Resources, Court of Claims No. 2003-10392-AD, 2004-Ohio-2097; also Masters v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 2005-09189-AD, 2005-Ohio7100. 1533.181. defendant. Therefore, plaintiff s claim is barred by R.C. Accordingly, judgment shall be rendered in favor of IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO RICK CROZIER : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-11621-AD DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons concurrently defendant. set forth herewith, in the judgment is memorandum rendered decision in filed favor Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. of The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. _____________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Rick Crozier 18521 Tontogany Road Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 Plaintiff, Pro se Charles G. Rowan Deputy Chief Counsel Department of Natural Resources 2045 Morse Road, D-3 Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693 For Defendant RDK/laa 3/29 Filed 4/5/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 5/4/06
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
