Skip to main content
· 5/6/2024

Baldwin v. Church of God of Trenton

Citations

  • 2024 Ohio 1726

Syllabus

If tortious supervision of a child engaged in a recreational activity that involves inherent risks is alleged, the plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly failed to provide appropriate supervision. Swimming is a recreational activity that involves the inherent risk of drowning. A child who voluntarily participates in this activity assumes the risk of drowning. A supervisor of a child who is swimming in a pool has no duty to decrease the inherent risk of drowning the supervisor has only to avoid intentionally or recklessly increasing the risk. A supervisor of a child who is swimming in a pool does not consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a child will drown by not acting to decrease the inherent risk of drowning, where the supervisor did not know or have reason to know that there was an unreasonable risk of a serious danger that had a strong probability of causing harm. WITH Dissenting Opinion.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that the government has a duty to “disclose material evidence that is favorable to the defendant over which the prosecution team has control”
  • recognizing that “it is sometimes necessary and proper for the trial court to re-charge a jury to correct possible misunderstandings based on the original instruction given” and that the court has a duty “to instruct the jury on the law of the case”
  • finding government did not have control over cooperating witness’s documents where they were not produced until the midst of trial
  • finding government did not have control over cooperating witness’s documents where they were not produced until the midst of trial
  • stating there is no affirmative duty to discover information in possession of independent, cooperating witness and not in government’s possession
  • cooperating witness was not “acting on the government’s behalf,” and government could not be said to have suppressed fifteen boxes of documents produced by witness in middle of trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Byrne

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.