Wright v. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Ohio’s statute “does not extend to private owners of residential swimming pools whose social guest is injured while swimming, where the premises in question are not held open for gratuitous recreational use by the general public”
• holding that Ohio’s statute “does not extend to private owners of residential swimming pools whose social guest is injured while swimming, where the premises in question are not held open for gratuitous recreational use by the general public”
• stating that, “[s]ince the purpose of the [Ohio] legislation conferring immunity is to encourage owners of premises suitable for recreational pursuits to open their lands for public use, it follows that where the land in question is not held open to the public, the immunity does not apply[]”
• private pool not held open for public use is not protected by R.C. 1533.181
• private pool not held open for public use is not protected by R.C. 1533.181
• “Since the purpose of the legislation conferring immunity is to encourage owners of premises suitable for recreational pursuits to open their lands for public use, it follows that where the land in question is not held open to the public, the immunity does not apply.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).