To enact section 2305.322 of the Revised Code to establish a liability framework for participants, sponsors, and spectators during motorized off-road activities.
HB942 would create a new liability framework in Ohio law for organized motorized off-road activities, including events involving ATVs, utility vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, and snowmobiles. The bill defines key terms such as participant, spectator, sponsor, and the “inherent risks” of these activities, which include terrain conditions, jumps and obstacles, collisions, weather, participant error, mechanical failure not caused by sponsor negligence, and delayed emergency response due to remote locations.
Under the bill, participants are deemed to assume the inherent risks of the activity, and sponsors would generally not be liable for injuries or other harm arising from those risks. The bill preserves liability in cases of gross negligence, willful or wanton misconduct, intentional injury, knowingly providing faulty equipment, or reckless failure to build, maintain, inspect, or mark a track or facility safely. It also requires a parent or guardian waiver for minors, mandates a safety briefing before participation, and extends risk-assumption rules to spectators in restricted areas. The bill further limits application of the attractive nuisance doctrine for these activities when reasonable access controls are in place, while stating that it does not create a new cause of action and does not alter existing law under Chapters 2307 or 4123 of the Revised Code.
If enacted, HB942 would add a new section to Ohio’s tort law governing civil liability for motorized off-road activity sponsors, participants, and spectators. It would likely reduce exposure to negligence claims for sponsors and operators by codifying assumption of risk for inherent dangers, while preserving claims for more serious misconduct and unsafe equipment or facility conditions. The bill would also impose operational obligations, including safety briefings and written waivers for minors, and would affect how courts evaluate injuries occurring at off-road tracks, trails, and similar venues.
The bill appears to be in an early, introduced stage with no recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition from hearings. Based on the text, the measure is framed as a liability and safety clarification bill rather than a broad policy change, suggesting an intent to provide certainty for sponsors and participants in a recreational industry. The absence of recorded debate means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the legislative record provided, but the bill’s structure indicates a pro-industry, risk-allocation approach balanced by retained liability for egregious conduct.
The main points of contention are likely to center on whether the bill gives too much protection to sponsors and operators at the expense of injured participants, especially minors and spectators. Potential critics may object to the broad assumption-of-risk language, the waiver requirement for minors, and the limitation of the attractive nuisance doctrine, while supporters are likely to emphasize the need for predictable liability rules for off-road recreation businesses and event organizers. Another likely issue is the scope of the exceptions, particularly whether the bill sufficiently preserves remedies for unsafe facilities, defective equipment, and reckless conduct.