convenience rule in Ohio

2019As noted by the Ohio Supreme Court, “[a]ny number of considerations may justify the imposition of duty in particular circumstances, including the guidance of history, our continually refined concepts of morals and justice, the convenience of the rule, and social judgment as to where the loss should fall.” (Citation omitted.) Mussivand, 30. 45 Ohio St.3d 314 at 318 , 544 N.E.2d 265 .

2019As noted by the Ohio Supreme Court, “[a]ny number of considerations may justify the imposition of duty in particular circumstances, including the guidance of history, our continually refined concepts of morals and justice, the convenience of the rule, and social judgment as to where the loss should fall.” (Citation omitted.) Mussivand, 30. 45 Ohio St.3d 314 at 318 , 544 N.E.2d 265 .

2018Mary's School (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 563 , 565, 697 N.E.2d 198 ; Eisenhuth v. Moneyhon (1954), 161 Ohio St. 367 , 53 O.O. 274 , 119 N.E.2d 440 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 10} Furthermore, a determination that a defendant owes a particular duty of care to a plaintiff amounts to an: " 'expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.' " (Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed.1971) pp. 325-326.) Any number of considerations may justify the imposition of duty in particular circumstances, including the gu

2018Mary's School (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 563 , 565, 697 N.E.2d 198 ; Eisenhuth v. Moneyhon (1954), 161 Ohio St. 367 , 53 O.O. 274 , 119 N.E.2d 440 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 10} Furthermore, a determination that a defendant owes a particular duty of care to a plaintiff amounts to an: " 'expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.' " (Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed.1971) pp. 325-326.) Any number of considerations may justify the imposition of duty in particular circumstances, including the gu

2003(Prosser, Palsgraf Revisted (1953), 52 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 15)."'" Wallace, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 , at ¶ 24, quoting Mussivand v. David (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 314 , 318 , quoting Weirum v. RKO Gen.

2003Duty “* * * is the court’s ‘expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.’ (Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed.1971) pp. 325-326.) Any number of considerations may justify the imposition of duty in particular circumstances, including the guidance of history, our continually refined concepts of morals and justice, the convenience of the rule, and social judgment as to where the loss should fall.” ’ (Citations omitted.) Mussivand [v. David (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318 , 544 N.E.2d 265, 269-270 ].” Eva

2003Duty “* * * is the court’s ‘expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.’ (Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed.1971) pp. 325-326.) Any number of considerations may justify the imposition of duty in particular circumstances, including the guidance of history, our continually refined concepts of morals and justice, the convenience of the rule, and social judgment as to where the loss should fall.” ’ (Citations omitted.) Mussivand [v. David (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318 , 544 N.E.2d 265, 269-270 ].” Eva

1986In light of the transparently weak analysis the majority has employed to overrule and repudiate this court’s recent holding as to precisely the same newspaper article at issue in Milkovich , Justice Holmes’ own words in his dissent in Wilfong v. Batdorf (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 100, 109 , again most appropriately describe the majority’s action: “I strongly conclude that the law as most recently announced * * * should be followed by the court in this case.