COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                      COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           NO. 83764
 
 
 
MATTHEW HOLBROOK              :       ACCELERATED DOCKET
                              :
          Plaintiff-appellant :
                              :          JOURNAL ENTRY
    vs.                       :               and
                              :             OPINION
ERIN MCCRACKEN                :
                              :
          Defendant-appellee :
                              :
 
 
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    June 24, 2004
 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING       :    Civil appeal from
                              :    Cuyahoga County Court of
                              :    Common Pleas
                              :    Case No. CV-466188
 
JUDGMENT                      :    AFFIRMED.
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For plaintiff-appellant:      JACK G. FYNES
                              NATHAN A. HALL
                              Attorneys at Law
                              SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
                              North Courthouse Square
                              1000 Jackson Street
                              Toledo, Ohio 43624
 
For defendant-appellee:       JAMES M. JOHNSON
                              Attorney at Law
                              KOETH, RICE & LEO CO., L.P.A.
                              1280 West Third Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio   44113
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -2-
 
 
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
 
     This cause came to be heard on the accelerated calendar
 
pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 11.1. The purpose of an
 
accelerated appeal is to allow the appellate court to render a
 
brief and conclusory decision. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall
 
Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158.
 
     Plaintiff-appellant Matthew Holbrook appeals from the trial
 
court order that granted summary judgment to defendant-appellee
 
Erin McCracken, thus terminating appellant's personal injury
 
action.
 
     Appellant was injured when he fell from an indoor rock wall he
 
had climbed for recreation. At the time, appellee was acting as
 
his "belayer," i.e., as appellant descended from his successful
 
climb, appellee reversed the process of taking up slack and instead
 
let out rope for him from the top of the wall through a harness
 
system attached to her body. Appellee stated she thought she
 
"wasn't fast enough" at locking the smooth "new" rope before too
 
much of it slipped through the device on her harness and slackened
 
appellant's line.
 
     In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues the trial
 
court improperly determined the doctrine of primary assumption of
 
the risk precluded appellee's liability on appellant's claim. This
 
court disagrees.
 
     The Ohio Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the applicability
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -3-
 
of that doctrine to recreational activities in Gentry v. Craycraft,
 
101 Ohio St.3d 141, 2004-Ohio-379. In order to gain the thrill
 
associated with rock climbing, the appellant voluntarily assumed
 
the primary and "inherent risk" of the activity, viz., falling.
 
Blankenship v. CRT Tree, Cuyahoga App. No. 80907, 2002-Ohio-5354.
 
     Therefore, despite appellant's expert's opinion that appellee
 
was "reckless" in permitting the rope to slip through her hands,
 
the risk of falling inherent to the activity of rock climbing can
 
be "reduced***[but] cannot be eliminated. " Vorum v. Joy Outdoor
 
Education Center, (Dec. 12, 1998), Warren App. No. CA98-06-072.
 
This is especially true when the injury results from simple human
 
error. Gentry v. Craycraft, supra, *P. 14.
 
     Since there was no evidence that appellee acted either
 
intentionally or recklessly when the rope she held slipped before
 
the harness device could lock it in place, the trial court
 
correctly concluded she was entitled to summary judgment on
 
appellant's claim.
 
     Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is overruled.
 
     Affirmed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                  -4-
 
     It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein
 
taxed.
 
     The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
 
     It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court
 
directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this
 
judgment into execution.
 
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate
 
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
 
 
 
 
                                           KENNETH A. ROCCO
                                                 JUDGE
JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J.         and
 
DIANE KARPINSKI, J.         CONCUR
 
 
 
 
N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R.
22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized
and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R.
22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per
App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the
court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of
Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's
announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also,
S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1).
 
.