Appellants were injured during a yacht race with appellee. Appellant sued appellees but appellants alleged only negligence. Summary judgment was granted for appellee. Appellants raise the following assignments of error:

I

UNDER SECTION 2315.19, THE OHIO REVISED CODE, THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOES NOT BAR THE PLAINTIFFS' RECOVERY.

II

IF EVIDENCE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK WAS FOUND, THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE TRIER OF FACT, PURSUANT TO R.C. 2315.19(B), AND THE REQUIRED FINDINGS MADE.

Ill

MATERIAL FACT ISSUES EXIST AS TO THE PROXIMATE CAUSE AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE EMOTIONAL INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFFS.

As the assignments of error are related, we shall address them together.

"Where individuals engage in recreational or sports activities they assume the ordinary risks of the activity and cannot recover for any injury unless it can be shown that the other partici-pant's actions were either 'reckless' or 'intentional' as defined in Sections 500 and 8A of the Restatement of Torts 2d." Marchetti v. Kalish (1990), 53 Ohio St. 3d 95 (syllabus). 1 The collision occurred during an ordinary risk: passing or maneuvering during a race. The appellants' primary assumption of the risk bars their claims. R.C. 2315.19(B) is inapplicable to primary assumption of the risk.

The assignments of error are overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.