In Gentry v. Craycraft, 101 Ohio St.3d 141, 2004 Ohio 379, 802 N.E.2d 1116, at P11, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the basis of its decisions in both Marchetti and Thompson v. McNeill (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 102, 559 N.E.2d 705, stating, "[o]bviously, without our stating so, in Marchetti and Thompson we applied 'primary' assumption-of-risk principles in limiting the defendant's liability. Primary assumption of the risk is essentially a principle of no duty, or no negligence." Id., citing Prosser & Keeton, The Law of Torts (5th Ed.1984) 496, Section 68. Thus, the Ohio Supreme Court reasoned that a plaintiff assumed the risk by voluntarily participating in the activity or sport, and chose to focus on the conduct of the defendant to determine whether he or she had been reckless or had acted intentionally. Id. at P13. In Gentry, the Ohio Supreme Court reiterated "that in a personal injury action brought for injuries sustained while an individual is a participant in or a spectator at a sport or recreational activity,recovery is dependent upon whether the defendant's conduct was either reckless or intentional." Id.