contractor rule in Ohio

2007Co. v. Chrysler Realty Corp. (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 222 , 25 OBR 283, 495 N.E.2d 952 , the other Ohio case cited by the majority, the delay was caused by a need to have the construction site rezoned, which by contract was the responsibility of the contractor. {¶ 57} Here, the principal cause of the delay, as determined by the finder of fact, was “an excessive number of errors, omissions and conflicts in the design documents furnished to bidders by the state and incorporated into [Dugan & Meyers’s] contracts.” There were no shifting sands, no acts of God, no surprising aquifers.

2007Co. v. Chrysler Realty Corp. (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 222 , 25 OBR 283, 495 N.E.2d 952 , the other Ohio case cited by the majority, the delay was caused by a need to have the construction site rezoned, which by contract was the responsibility of the contractor. {¶ 57} Here, the principal cause of the delay, as determined by the finder of fact, was “an excessive number of errors, omissions and conflicts in the design documents furnished to bidders by the state and incorporated into [Dugan & Meyers’s] contracts.” There were no shifting sands, no acts of God, no surprising aquifers.

2000Id; Rubbo v. Hughes Provision Co. (1941), 138 Ohio St. 178 ; Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 584 , paragraph four of the syllabus.

1990Rubbo v. Hughes Provision Co. (1941), 138 Ohio St. 178 , 20 O.O. 233 , 34 N.E. 2d 202 ; Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 584 , 26 O.O. 161 , 49 N.E. 2d 925 , paragraph four of the syllabus.

2000Id; Rubbo v. Hughes Provision Co. (1941), 138 Ohio St. 178 ; Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 584 , paragraph four of the syllabus.

1990Rubbo v. Hughes Provision Co. (1941), 138 Ohio St. 178 , 20 O.O. 233 , 34 N.E. 2d 202 ; Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 584 , 26 O.O. 161 , 49 N.E. 2d 925 , paragraph four of the syllabus.

1999Black cites Best v. Energized Substation Serv., Inc. (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 109, 115 , 623 N.E.2d 158, 162 , where the court held that a principal cannot be held liable for negligent selection of the independent contractor in a claim by an employee of the independent contractor.

1999Black cites Best v. Energized Substation Serv., Inc. (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 109, 115 , 623 N.E.2d 158, 162 , where the court held that a principal cannot be held liable for negligent selection of the independent contractor in a claim by an employee of the independent contractor.

2020Franklin No. 14AP-783, 2015-Ohio-3008 , ¶ 7 (applying plain error where appellant failed to file a memorandum opposing summary judgment). {¶ 78} “In appeals of civil cases, the plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (199

2020Franklin No. 14AP-783, 2015-Ohio-3008 , ¶ 7 (applying plain error where appellant failed to file a memorandum opposing summary judgment). {¶ 78} “In appeals of civil cases, the plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (199

1990Co. v. Miller (1936), 131 Ohio St. 424 , 6 O.O. 119 , 3 N.E. 2d 360 , paragraphs one through four of the syllabus (duty to refrain from interfering with the right of the public to safe and unimpeded use of highways and streets, and the duty to keep premises reasonably safe); Strayer v. Lindeman (1981), 68 Ohio St. 2d 32 , 22 O.O. 3d 159, 427 N.E. 2d 781 , at syllabus (duty of a landlord to exercise reasonable care in proceeding with repairs).

1990Co. v. Miller (1936), 131 Ohio St. 424 , 6 O.O. 119 , 3 N.E. 2d 360 , paragraphs one through four of the syllabus (duty to refrain from interfering with the right of the public to safe and unimpeded use of highways and streets, and the duty to keep premises reasonably safe); Strayer v. Lindeman (1981), 68 Ohio St. 2d 32 , 22 O.O. 3d 159, 427 N.E. 2d 781 , at syllabus (duty of a landlord to exercise reasonable care in proceeding with repairs).

1990Rather, the contractor asserts that the zoning board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably in denying, its request for a variance 'The standard for granting a variance which relates solely to area requirements should be a lesser standard than that applied to variances which relate to usa An application for an area variance need not establish unnecessary hardship; it is sufficient that the application show practical difficulties" Kisil v. Sandusky (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 30 , syllabus. 'The factors to be considered and weighed in determining whether a property owner seeking an area v

1990Rather, the contractor asserts that the zoning board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably in denying, its request for a variance 'The standard for granting a variance which relates solely to area requirements should be a lesser standard than that applied to variances which relate to usa An application for an area variance need not establish unnecessary hardship; it is sufficient that the application show practical difficulties" Kisil v. Sandusky (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 30 , syllabus. 'The factors to be considered and weighed in determining whether a property owner seeking an area v

1990Co. v. Miller (1936), 131 Ohio St. 424 , 6 O.O. 119 , 3 N.E. 2d 360 , paragraphs one through four of the syllabus (duty to refrain from interfering with the right of the public to safe and unimpeded use of highways and streets, and the duty to keep premises reasonably safe); Strayer v. Lindeman (1981), 68 Ohio St. 2d 32 , 22 O.O. 3d 159, 427 N.E. 2d 781 , at syllabus (duty of a landlord to exercise reasonable care in proceeding with repairs).

1990Co. v. Miller (1936), 131 Ohio St. 424 , 6 O.O. 119 , 3 N.E. 2d 360 , paragraphs one through four of the syllabus (duty to refrain from interfering with the right of the public to safe and unimpeded use of highways and streets, and the duty to keep premises reasonably safe); Strayer v. Lindeman (1981), 68 Ohio St. 2d 32 , 22 O.O. 3d 159, 427 N.E. 2d 781 , at syllabus (duty of a landlord to exercise reasonable care in proceeding with repairs).

1959In Christhilf v. Baltimore, 152 Md., 204 , 136 A., 527 , it was held that the contractor could not recover for delay in *141 securing a right of way, where the contractor knew that the city did not own the right of way, and where the contract provided that, if the contractor was delayed because of failure to obtain the right of way, an extension of time would be granted, that the contractor would have no claim for damages on account of the delay.

1959In Christhilf v. Baltimore, 152 Md., 204 , 136 A., 527 , it was held that the contractor could not recover for delay in *141 securing a right of way, where the contractor knew that the city did not own the right of way, and where the contract provided that, if the contractor was delayed because of failure to obtain the right of way, an extension of time would be granted, that the contractor would have no claim for damages on account of the delay.