Case Title: Smith v. Landfair

Citation: 2012-Ohio-5692

Docket Number: 2011-1708

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-12-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Smith v. Landfair, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5692.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-5692 
SMITH, APPELLEE, v. LANDFAIR, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Smith v. Landfair, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5692.] 
(No. 2011-1708—Submitted July 10, 2012—Decided December 6, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 25371, 194 Ohio 
App.3d 468, 2011-Ohio-3043. 
_____________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
One who purposely places himself or herself in a location where equine activities 
are occurring and who sees such an activity is a “spectator” and hence an 
“equine 
activity 
participant” 
within 
the 
meaning 
of 
R.C. 
2305.321(A)(3)(g). 
__________________________________ 
 
LANZINGER, J. 
{¶ 1} Ohio’s equine-activities-immunity statute, R.C. 2305.321, provides 
immunity from liability for harm sustained by an equine activity participant 
allegedly resulting from the inherent risk of equine activities.  In this case we are 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
asked to determine when an injured person is a “spectator” and therefore an 
“equine activity participant” whose claim for damages is barred by the statute. 
{¶ 2} Because we conclude that the Ninth District Court of Appeals 
erred in overturning the trial court’s summary judgment based on its interpretation 
of the word “spectator,” we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. 
I.  Background 
{¶ 3} This personal injury action arises from a 2007 incident that 
occurred at CJS Standardbred Stables (“CJS”), located in Wayne County.  The 
following facts are taken from deposition testimony presented to the trial court. 
{¶ 4} Appellant Donald Landfair, a licensed livestock dealer for 40 
years, boarded two of his horses, Green Acre Patty (“Patty”) and Green Acre 
Annie (“Annie”) at CJS for breaking and training in harness racing.  Annie was a 
young horse, trained to be led, but the extent of her training in other areas, such as 
being loaded and unloaded from a trailer, was in dispute. 
{¶ 5} Appellee Roshel Smith, the daughter of CJS’s owner, worked at 
CJS from 2000 to 2008, assisting in the care and management of horses.  As 
groomer and barn manager, she had the opportunity to work with Annie and knew 
that horses are unpredictable and inherently dangerous. 
{¶ 6} On March 28, Landfair picked up Annie and Patty from CJS for 
off-site blacksmithing.  He loaded the horses into the trailer by, took them to the 
blacksmith, and reloaded them for return to CJS, by himself and without incident. 
Meanwhile Smith had stopped by CJS to visit her father.  As she was standing by 
the barn doorway watching her father exercise another horse on the track, 
Landfair unloaded Patty from the trailer.  Smith said “hi” to him when he put 
Patty into the barn and then saw him return to the trailer to unload Annie. As he 
was preparing to unload Annie, an Amish wagon with two teams of horses passed 
the trailer, spooking the horse.  According to Smith: 
 
January Term, 2012 
 
3
First, I heard a commotion and I glanced over and Annie 
had pushed Mr. Landfair out of the trailer and Mr. Landfair was on 
the ground, and then Annie proceeded to jump out of the trailer, 
and she was starting to step on him and he still had ahold of the 
[horse’s lead] line, and that's when I ran after and I don't remember 
very much after that. 
 
{¶ 7} When she tried to go to Landfair’s assistance, Smith was kicked in 
the head by the horse and received facial and head injuries.  She filed a personal-
injury complaint in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas alleging that 
Landfair had been negligent in attempting to handle an untrained and unbroken 
horse known to be skittish and in failing to seek assistance in unloading the horse 
from its trailer.  Landfair filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he 
was immune from liability pursuant to R.C. 2305.321. 
{¶ 8} After a hearing, the trial court agreed with Smith that she was not a 
participant in an equine event by virtue of assisting in the control of the horse 
pursuant to R.C. 2305.321(A)(3)(e).  But the court concluded that R.C. 
2305.321(A)(3)(g) applied to bar Smith’s claim because she was a spectator , i.e., 
she was present at the unloading of Annie and “noticed” that event.  Thus, Smith 
was “equine activity participant” when she was injured.  Summary judgment was 
granted in favor of Landfair. 
{¶ 9} Smith appealed, and the Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed 
the summary judgment, remanding the case to the trial court for further 
proceedings.  Smith v. Landfair, 194 Ohio App.3d 468, 2011-Ohio-3043, 956 
N.E.2d 915.  The appellate court rejected the trial court’s application of the 
immunity statute.  It held that Smith was not an equine-activity participant, 
because she was not a spectator as defined by R.C. 2305.321(A)(3)(g).  Nor was 
she assisting Landfair in controlling the horse within the meaning of R.C. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
2305.321(A)(3)(e).  Thus, immunity did not apply.  The court of appeals 
remanded the case to the trial court without ruling on the first, second, and fourth 
assignments of error.1 
{¶ 10} Landfair filed a discretionary appeal with six propositions of law, 
one of which we accepted: “A person is a ‘spectator’ and thus an ‘equine activity 
participant’ under R.C. 2305.321(A)(3) if the person is a bystander or observer at 
an equine activity.”  We now hold that one who purposely places himself or 
herself in a location where equine activities are occurring and who sees such an 
activity is a “spectator” and hence an “equine activity participant” within the 
meaning of R.C. 2305.321(A)(3)(g).  We therefore reverse the judgment of the 
Ninth District and remand to that court for consideration of the remaining 
assignments of error. 
II. Analysis 
{¶ 11} In enacting Ohio’s equine-activities-immunity statute, R.C. 
2305.321, the General Assembly declared that “an equine activity sponsor, equine 
activity participant, equine professional, veterinarian, farrier, or other person is 
not liable in damages in a tort or other civil action for harm that an equine activity 
participant allegedly sustains during an equine activity and that results from an 
inherent risk of an equine activity.” R.C. 2305.321(B)(1).  “ ‘Equine’ means a 
horse, pony, mule, donkey, hinny, zebra, zebra hybrid, or alpaca." R.C. 
2305.321(A)(1). 
                                          
 
1  Smith’s first assignment of error claimed that the trial court erred in concluding that R.C. 
2305.321 abrogated the common-law rescue doctrine. The second assignment of error argued that 
Landfair's conduct was wanton. The fourth assignment of error contended that the trial court erred 
in finding that Landfair was “controlling” Annie. The fifth assignment of error, which claimed that 
the trial court erred in failing to grant Smith’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to plead 
wanton misconduct, was overruled by the court of appeals as harmless error, because the trial 
court had considered the issue.    
 
January Term, 2012 
 
5
{¶ 12} At the outset, we note that the dissent would hold that R.C. 
2305.321 violates the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16. First, neither party 
has raised a constitutional issue in briefs or oral argument before the court. 
Declaring a statute unconstitutional, sua sponte, without notice to the parties 
would be unprecedented. 
{¶ 13} Even when one of the parties has raised a constitutional issue, we 
do not decide on that basis unless and until absolutely necessary. State ex rel. 
Clarke v. Cook, 103 Ohio St. 465, 134 N.E. 655 (1921), paragraph one of the 
syllabus (questions involving the constitutionality of statutes will not be 
determined by this court unless such determination is essential to the rendition of 
a proper judgment in the case); State ex rel. Herbert v. Ferguson, 142 Ohio St. 
496, 52 N.E.2d 980 (1944), paragraph two of the syllabus (constitutional 
questions will not be decided until the necessity for a decision arises on the record 
before the court);  Hall China Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 50 Ohio St.2d 206, 210, 
364 N.E.2d 852 (1977) (declining to address constitutional question of 
retroactivity when not necessary); State ex rel. Lieux v. Westlake, 154 Ohio St. 
412, 415-416, 96 N.E.2d 414 (1951) (constitutional validity of ordinance not 
addressed because administrative remedies had not been exhausted); State v. 1981 
Dodge Ram Van, 36 Ohio St.3d 168, 522 N.E.2d 524 (1988) (court of appeals' 
sua sponte consideration of constitutionality of vehicle-forfeiture statute without 
notice to parties was abuse of court's discretion). 
We therefore decline to rule 
on a constitutional issue that is not before us. 
Statutory language 
{¶ 14} The General Assembly acknowledged the inherent risks that arise 
when people interact with horses and other animals in the category of equines. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
“Inherent risk of an equine activity" means a danger or condition 
that is an integral part of an equine activity, including, but not limited to, 
any of the following: 
(a) The propensity of an equine to behave in ways that may result 
in injury, death, or loss to persons on or around the equine; 
(b) The unpredictability of an equine's reaction to sounds, sudden 
movement, unfamiliar objects, persons, or other animals. 
 
R.C. 2305.321(A)(7). 
 
{¶ 15} “Equine activity” is broadly defined in R.C. 2305.321(A)(2)(a) as:   
(i) An equine show, fair, competition, performance, or 
parade that involves an equine and an equine discipline, including, 
but not limited to, dressage, a hunter and jumper show, grand prix 
jumping, a three-day event, combined training, a rodeo, driving, 
pulling, cutting, reining, team penning, barrel racing, polo, 
steeplechasing, English or western performance riding, endurance 
or nonendurance trail riding, western games, hunting, packing, and 
recreational riding; 
 
(ii) An equine or rider training, teaching, instructing, 
testing, or evaluating activity, including, but not limited to, a 
clinic, seminar, or symposium; 
(iii) The boarding of an equine, including, but not limited 
to, normal daily care of an equine; 
(iv) The trailering, loading, unloading, or transporting of an 
equine; 
January Term, 2012 
 
7
(v) The riding, inspecting, or evaluating of an equine 
owned by another person, regardless of whether the owner has 
received anything of value for the use of the equine or is permitting 
a prospective purchaser of the equine to ride, inspect, or evaluate 
it; 
(vi) A ride, trip, hunt, branding, roundup, cattle drive, or 
other activity that involves an equine and that is sponsored by an 
equine activity sponsor, regardless of whether the activity is 
formal, informal, planned, or impromptu; 
(vii) The placing or replacing of horseshoes on an equine, 
the removing of horseshoes from an equine, or the trimming of the 
hooves of an equine; 
(viii) The provision of or assistance in the provision of 
veterinary treatment or maintenance care for an equine; 
(ix) The conducting of procedures or assistance in the 
conducting of procedures necessary to breed an equine by means 
of artificial insemination or otherwise. 
 
{¶ 16} As this broad language shows, almost every activity associated 
with a horse is an “equine activity.” 2  The General Assembly used similarly 
broad language in defining “equine activity participant”: 
 
 “Equine activity participant” means a person who engages in 
any of the following activities, regardless of whether the person is an 
amateur or a professional or whether a fee is paid to participate in the 
particular activity:   
                                          
 
2 Horse racing is expressly excluded.  R.C. 2305.321(A)(2)(b). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
(a) Riding, training, driving, or controlling in any manner an 
equine, whether the equine is mounted or unmounted;  
(b) Being a passenger upon an equine;  
(c) Providing medical treatment to an equine;  
(d) Conducting procedures of [sic] assisting in conducting 
procedures necessary to breed an equine by means of artificial 
insemination or otherwise;  
(e) Assisting a person who is engaged in an activity described 
in division (A)(3)(a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section; 
(f) Sponsoring an equine activity;  
(g) Being a spectator at an equine activity. 
 
(Emphasis added.)  R.C. 2305.321(A)(3). 
 
 
Judicial interpretation 
{¶ 17} The word “spectator” is not defined in the statute.  It is undisputed 
that Landfair was involved in an equine activity when he was loading and 
unloading his horses; what is disputed is whether Smith was an equine- activity 
participant by virtue of being a spectator when she was injured.  If she was, R.C. 
2305.321(A)(3)(g) applies, and her claim is barred. 
{¶ 18} In interpreting statutory language, a court's paramount concern is 
legislative intent. State v. S.R., 63 Ohio St.3d 590, 594, 589 N.E.2d 1319 (1995). 
Unless expressly defined, the words and phrases contained in Ohio's statutes are 
to be given their plain, common, ordinary meaning and are to be construed 
“according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” R.C. 1.42; Kunkler v. 
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 135, 137, 522 N.E.2d 477 (1988);. 
State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Allen Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 32 Ohio St.3d 24, 27, 512 
N.E.2d 332 (1987).  Indeed, in the few existing cases construing the equine-
January Term, 2012 
 
9
activity statute, Ohio courts have looked to common dictionary definitions to 
assist them.  In addition to the trial court and the appellate court in this case, see 
Allison v. Johnson, 11th Dist. No. 2000-T-0116, *5 (June 2, 2001); Gibson v. 
Donahue, 148 Ohio App.3d 139, 772 N.E.2d 646.  
{¶ 19} In Allison, relying on dictionary definitions, the court of appeals 
rejected the plaintiff’s argument that she was merely a bystander rather than a 
spectator when she was injured while watching the defendant lead a horse into a 
barn.  When the defendant turned to close the gate behind him, the horse jumped 
backwards, dislodging a piece of the gate, which flew off and struck the plaintiff 
in the face.  The court found no distinction between the plain and ordinary 
meaning of “spectator” and “bystander” and concluded that the plaintiff “was an 
equine activity participant by virtue of being a spectator, to-wit: an observer, 
watcher, or bystander.”  Id. at *7.  Nonetheless, the court made clear that it was 
not approving immunity in all circumstances in which a person happens to see a 
horse and is injured by it. 
{¶ 20} In the instant case, the Ninth District considered several dictionary 
definitions of “spectator”:   
 
The common, ordinary meaning of spectator is “[o]ne who 
attends and views a show, sports event or the like.”  The 
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1981) 
1241.  See also Allison at *5 (examining common dictionary 
definitions of spectator, including “ ‘one that looks on or 
beholds; * * * one witnessing an exhibition[;’ ˮ and “ ‘] a 
person who watched without participating’ ˮ).3 
 
                                          
 
3 The Allison court attributed these definitions to Webster's Third New International Dictionary 
2188 (1986) and The Random House Dictionary, Concise Edition 840 (1983). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
Smith v. Landfair, 194 Ohio App.3d 468, 2011-Ohio-3043, 956 N.E.2d 
915, ¶ 14. 
 
{¶ 21} The court observed: 
 
While one might ordinarily conclude that someone who is a 
spectator is viewing an event or exhibition, such as a horse show, 
the legislature has envisioned that a person can be a spectator of 
any equine activity, including the trailering of a horse and the 
normal daily care of a horse. See R.C. 2305.321(A)(2)(a)(iii) and 
(iv); R.C. 2305.321(A)(3)(g). For example, one could be a 
spectator while watching a farrier engaged in the process of 
placing shoes on a horse. Nonetheless, the word "spectator" should 
not be interpreted so that any individual who glances at a horse and 
is thereafter injured by it becomes a spectator of an equine activity 
and thereby an equine-activity participant. Indeed, such a view 
would distort the common and ordinary meaning of the word and 
would require  a conclusion that any person, even a mail carrier 
who happens to momentarily glance at a horse or has some 
awareness in his peripheral vision that a horse is engaged in some 
activity, is deemed a spectator. 
 
Id. at ¶ 15. 
{¶ 22} The court then decided that to be a spectator, one must purposely 
watch the activity in question and concluded that Smith was not a “spectator” 
because she was not “watching” the equine activity at issue, namely, Landfair 
unloading Annie. Instead, she saw him “only out of her peripheral vision.”  Id. at 
¶ 16. 
January Term, 2012 
 
11
Parties’ positions 
{¶ 23} Landfair argues that the court of appeals unduly restricted the 
broad language of R.C. 2305.321(A)(2) and (3).  He contends that the trial court 
correctly found that Smith was a spectator by “being present at the unloading of 
Annie and ‘noticing’ the events that transpired leading up to her injury.”  Landfair 
emphasizes that by voluntarily positioning herself at the stable area before he 
arrived and remaining at the stable area as he unloaded his horses, Smith placed 
herself in a position to watch, see, or interact with an equine activity and so 
subjected herself to the immunity statute.  Landfair finally argues that his 
interpretation is consistent with the General Assembly’s purpose in enacting the 
statute, which is to address “the inherent risks that arise when large, unpredictable 
animals like horses are in close contact with people.” 
{¶ 24} Smith maintains that the court of appeals’ interpretation was 
correct in narrowing the definition of “spectator” to require an intent to see or 
watch a specific equine activity. Otherwise, the immunity statute covers all 
victims of the inherent risk of equine activity, rendering meaningless the 
limitation of immunity to an “equine activity participant.” Smith argues that a 
spectator is someone who has intentionally placed himself or herself for the 
purpose of seeing an event.  Because she did not place herself at the barn doorway 
intending to watch Landfair unloading his horses, she was not a spectator of that 
equine activity. Smith also asserts that the court should give this narrower 
interpretation to the word “spectator” to avoid eliminating more tort claims than 
the General Assembly intended. 
Definition of “spectator” 
{¶ 25} The parties have offered us two competing interpretations.  On the 
one hand, a spectator is merely a bystander who happens to be in the vicinity of 
an equine activity.  On the other hand, a spectator is someone who purposely goes 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
to a place where equine activities take place intending to watch.  In our view, the 
first is too broad and the second is too narrow. 
{¶ 26} Being a mere bystander or passerby is not enough.  First, the 
characteristics of the other types of “equine activity participants” listed in R.C. 
2305.321(A)(3)(a) to (f) imply a more active role was intended.  All the other 
categories of participants describe riding, controlling, treating, and breeding the 
animals.  These activities all involve purposeful, active contact with an equine, 
and to interpret “spectator” as extending to a bystander would inject disharmony 
among the subsections.  Words in a statute must be read in context, R.C. 1.42, and 
we do not believe that the context in which the term “spectator” was placed 
permits such an incongruous reading. 
{¶ 27} Moreover, given the purpose of the statute, we conclude that a 
person must deliberately put himself or herself in a position of exposure to the 
“inherent risk” of proximity to horses before immunity can apply.  The person 
need not be there to watch an equine activity in the classic sense of a spectator at 
a show or event.  It is the purposeful placement in an area of exposure that draws 
the immunity.  But the element of seeing cannot be completely eliminated, or the 
word “spectator” would be drained of all meaning.  Thus, we hold that one who 
purposely places himself or herself in a location where equine activities are 
occurring and who sees such an activity is a “spectator” and hence an “equine 
activity participant” within the meaning of R.C. 2305.321(A)(3)(g). 
{¶ 28} Here, the facts encompass one of the situations envisioned by the 
legislature. Smith was injured due to an “inherent risk of equine activity,” which 
includes the propensity of a horse to behave in ways that may result in injury. 
R.C. 2305.321(A)(7)(a).  In other words, horses are unpredictable.  Although 
Smith was not at the stable that day to work, she voluntarily placed herself in a 
location where equine activities were taking place, saw the attempted unloading 
of Annie from the trailer, and was injured due to the inherent risk of that activity.  
January Term, 2012 
 
13
Her proximity to Landfair’s horse was not due to chance.  She was at a horse 
stable to see her father, the stable owner, and was standing near the place where 
an “equine activity,” the unloading of a horse from a trailer, was occurring.  R.C. 
2305.321(A)(2)(a)(iv).  Thus, Smith’s claim for injury is barred. 
{¶ 29} We disagree with the Ninth District in this case. We reverse the 
judgment of the court of appeals on its holding that Smith was not a spectator as a 
matter of law because she was not watching Landfair unload Annie at the time she 
was injured.  As we have said, intent to watch is not necessary to be a “spectator.”  
As noted above, the statute at issue in this case is broadly written to address the 
inherent risks that arise when horses are near people, and it is the injured person’s 
voluntary placement in a position of known exposure to that risk that is key.  
Merely glancing at a horse would not render someone a spectator of equine 
activity. Simply being in the vicinity of equine activities is not enough.  Rather, 
the person must be there voluntarily, aware that equine activities are occurring. 
{¶ 30} In applying our definition, we hold that there are no material issues 
of fact regarding whether Smith was an equine-activity participant.  She stood 
near the barn door at her father’s stable to watch him exercise a horse, an equine 
activity in and of itself.  Although she was not specifically intending to watch 
Landfair unload Annie from his trailer, she knew that he was unloading the horse 
and saw it happening. Whether her perception of the unloading was based on 
direct viewing or mere peripheral vision is not determinative.  She had voluntarily 
placed herself in a location where equine activities were taking place, thus 
subjecting herself to the potential danger that arises from a horse’s unpredictable 
nature. 
{¶ 31} It is important to note, however, that not every person is a spectator 
when a horse is present. There is a measure of purposefulness needed to place 
oneself in the horse’s vicinity.  And soa mail carrier delivering mail at a farm who 
is injured by a runaway horse is not a spectator.  One must go to a place where 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
 
equine activities are occurring before being deemed to be a spectator within the 
meaning of  2305.321(A)(3)(g). 
III. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 32} Landfair is entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 2305.321(B)(1).  
Nevertheless, issues remain to be resolved in the court of appeals.  Smith 
maintained in her second assignment of error that any immunity from liability 
conferred by R.C. 2305.321(B)(1) was forfeited because Landfair's conduct was 
wanton under R.C. 2305.321(B)(2)(d).  She asserted in her fourth assignment of 
error that the trial court erred in finding that Landfair was “controlling” Annie 
within the meaning of R.C. 2305.321(A)(3)(A). And  Smith’s first assignment of 
error claimed that the trial court erred in concluding that R.C. 2305.321 abrogated 
the common-law rescue doctrine.  Due to its ruling on the third assignment of 
error, the court of appeals held these assignments of error to be moot.  We 
therefore remand the case to the Ninth District Court of Appeals to consider the 
remaining assignments of error. 
   Judgment reversed 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and cause remanded. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and  LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, CUPP, and 
MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J. dissents. 
__________________________________ 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 33} The Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16 states: “All courts 
shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, 
or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice 
administered without denial or delay.”  This court has stated,“This section of the 
Ohio Constitution protects the right to seek redress in Ohio's courts when one is 
January Term, 2012 
 
15
injured by another.”  Brennaman v. R.M.I. Co., 70 Ohio St.3d 460, 466, 639 
N.E.2d 425 (1994). 
{¶ 34} The majority opinion states that “Smith was injured due to an 
‘inherent risk of equine activity * * *.’ ”  Smith was not injured because of an 
inherent risk; she was injured because she went out of her way to help someone 
she was not obligated to help and was injured in the process.  Next time, she 
would be well served to sit back and watch a person get trampled.  The upshot of 
this case is to encourage people encountering a dangerous situation involving a 
horse to watch, rather than attempt to help.  Of course, even in that situation, if the 
horse walked over to the person watching and kicked her, there would be no 
recovery because that person would be a spectator. 
{¶ 35} The broad scope of R.C. 2305.321 as enacted by the General 
Assembly and as interpreted by this court effectively renders Article I, Section 16 
toothless with respect to equine-related injuries.  It is hard to envision broader 
immunity than that conferred by R.C. 2305.321.  Even the benighted sovereign 
immunity has significant exceptions.  R.C. 2305.321 provides blanket immunity 
to horse owners and, in doing so, contravenes the Ohio Constitution, Article I, 
Section 16.  I would adopt the sound reasoning of the court of appeals.  I dissent. 
__________________________________ 
 
Reinhardt Law Firm, Ltd., and John K. Reinhardt, for appellee. 
 
Hanna, Campbell & Powell, L.L.P., Kenneth A. Calderone, and John R. 
Chlysta, for appellant. 
 
Giorgianni Law, L.L.C., and Paul Giorgianni, urging affirmance for 
amicus curiae Ohio Association for Justice. 
 
Green & Green Lawyers, L.P.A., and Thomas M. Green, urging reversal 
for amicus curiae Ohio Horseman’s Council. 
__________________________________