The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision in the case of Hug v. Hake, affirming that the Hakes were not liable for injuries sustained by Candace Hug in a UTV accident. The ruling, issued on August 21, 2026, affects those involved in recreational activities on private property and clarifies the application of Ohio's recreational immunity statute.
The case began when Candace Hug and her husband Jeffrey appealed a November 2025 ruling from the Williams County Court of Common Pleas. The court had granted summary judgment in favor of Devin Hake, Stacy Hake, and Tacia Livensparger, who were named as defendants in the case. The court's decision means that the Hakes and Livensparger are not liable for Candace's injuries, which occurred during a social gathering at the Hakes' property.
The dispute arose from an incident on May 26, 2024, when Candace Hug and Livensparger took a ride on a Polaris Ranger 1000 utility vehicle (UTV) on the Hakes' property in Edon, Ohio. During the ride, the UTV overturned, trapping Candace underneath it and causing serious injuries, including a fractured neck vertebra and PTSD. The Hakes owned the property, which features both residential and recreational areas, including wooded areas and trails.
On the night of the accident, the Hakes had invited guests over for a bonfire. Livensparger, who was driving the UTV, had taken Candace for a ride earlier in the evening without incident. However, during the second ride, the UTV flipped over after hitting a washout on a trail. The Hakes did not charge for the UTV rides and did not provide safety instructions or equipment.
In their appeal, the Hugs argued that the Hakes should not be granted immunity under Ohio's recreational user statute, R.C. 1533.181, claiming that Candace was not a recreational user because the property was not open to the public. The Hakes countered that Candace was indeed a recreational user, as she had permission to be on their property and was not charged for the ride.
The trial court found that the Hakes were entitled to immunity under R.C. 1533.181, which protects landowners from liability to recreational users. The court ruled that Candace was a recreational user because she was using the UTV for a recreational purpose without paying a fee. The court also determined that the property was nonresidential, which is a requirement for the immunity to apply.
The court ruled, "The Hakes meet all of the elements of the recreational user statute, they are entitled to immunity under R.C. 1533.181."
Additionally, the court found that there was no evidence suggesting that the Hakes acted recklessly or intentionally in allowing Livensparger to drive the UTV. The Hugs had argued that the Hakes should have warned about hazardous conditions on the property, but the court concluded that the Hakes had no duty to do so under the statute.
In its ruling, the court stated, "The determination of whether R.C. 1533.181 applies depends not on the property owner’s actions, but on whether the person using the property qualifies as a recreational user." This statement emphasizes the importance of the recreational user status in determining liability.
The ruling has significant implications for recreational activities on private property in Ohio. It clarifies that property owners may not be held liable for injuries that occur during recreational activities, provided that the injured party qualifies as a recreational user and that the property meets the necessary criteria for immunity.
The decision also highlights the importance of understanding the risks associated with recreational activities. Participants in such activities are generally assumed to accept the inherent risks involved, which can limit their ability to seek damages in the event of an accident.
As for what’s next, the Hugs have the option to appeal the ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court, but it remains unclear whether they will pursue that route. There are no related cases pending at this time.
This case serves as a reminder for individuals engaging in recreational activities on private property to be aware of the potential risks and the legal protections available to property owners. It also underscores the need for clear communication about safety and risks when participating in such activities.