positive and definite standard in Ohio

14 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2026 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Chambers v. St. Mary's Schoolgreen ohio · 1998 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1999–2014 2 sentences 2014Where “a positive and definite standard of care has been established by legislative enactment whereby a jury may determine whether there has been a violation thereof by finding a single issue of fact, a violation is negligence per se.” Id., quoting Eisenhuth v. Moneyhon, 161 Ohio St. 367 , 374-375, 119 N.E.2d 440 (1954). {¶10} The violation of R.C. 4511.75(E) is negligence per se. 2009The statute must set forth “a positive and definite standard of care * * * whereby a jury may determine whether there has been a violation thereof by finding a single issue of fact.” Chambers at 565, 697 N.E.2d 198 .	2	3
Sikora v. Wenzelgreen ohio · 2000 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2001–2014 2 sentences 2014“In such instances, the statute ‘serves as a legislative declaration of the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person applicable in negligence actions.’ Thus the ‘reasonable person standard is supplanted by a standard of care established by the legislature.’ ” Sikora v. Wenzel, 88 Ohio St.3d 493, 496 , 727 N.E.2d 1277 (2000), quoting 57A American Jurisprudence 2d (1989), 672, Negligence, Section 748. {¶ 42} A pertinent application of these principles occurred in Abbuhl v. Orange Village, 8th Dist. 2001See Sikora v. Wenzel (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 493 , 496 (stating that negligence per se exists when there is violation of a statutory section that provides a positive and definite standard of care).	1	2
Miller v. Ritchiegreen ohio · 1989 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 1 sentence 2026See Miller v. Ritchie, 45 Ohio St.3d 222, 224 (2000) (The Ohio Supreme Court held “a tenant who withholds but does not escrow rent does not waive the right to recover damages caused by a landlord’s breach of duty.”). {¶26} If a statute sets forth a positive and definite standard of care (versus a general, abstract description of a duty), a violation of the statute constitutes negligence per se, and that violation conclusively proves that the defendant has violated a duty to the plaintiff.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Mann v. Northgate Investors, L.L.C. green ohio · 2014 2 sentences 2020For a violation of a statute to constitute negligence per se, the statute must “set forth a positive and definite standard of care.” Mann v. Northgate Investors, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2014-Ohio-455 , 5 N.E.3d 594, ¶ 29 . 2020For a violation of a statute to constitute negligence per se, the statute must “set forth a positive and definite standard of care.” Mann v. Northgate Investors, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2014-Ohio-455 , 5 N.E.3d 594, ¶ 29 .	6	2014–2026
Robinson v. Bates green ohio · 2006 2 sentences 2014“Negligence per se is also different from strict liability, in that a negligence-per-se violation will not preclude defenses and excuses, unless the statute clearly contemplates such a result.” Robinson, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 , 2006-Ohio-6362 , 857 N.E.2d 1195, at ¶ 23 . 2014“Negligence per se is also different from strict liability, in that a negligence-per-se violation will not preclude defenses and excuses, unless the statute clearly contemplates such a result.” Robinson, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 , 2006-Ohio-6362 , 857 N.E.2d 1195, at ¶ 23 .	1	2014–2014
Swoboda v. Brown green · 1935 2 sentences 2008If “a positive and definite standard of care has been established by legislative enactment whereby a jury may determine whether there has been a violation thereof by finding a single issue of fact, a violation is negligence per se.” Id. 2008“Negligence per se is tantamount to strict liability for purposes of proving that a defendant breached a duty.” Id.	1	2008–2008
Gore v. People's Savings Bank green conn · 1995 2 sentences 2000Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 677, 680 , 693 N.E.2d 271, 274 ; Gore, supra, 235 Conn. at 373 , 665 A.2d at 1347 . {¶ 14} But where a statute sets forth “ ‘a positive and definite standard of care * * * whereby a jury may determine whether there has been a violation thereof by finding a single issue of fact,’ ” a violation of that statute constitutes negligence per se. 2000Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 677, 680 , 693 N.E.2d 271, 274 ; Gore, supra, 235 Conn. at 373 , 665 A.2d at 1347 . {¶ 14} But where a statute sets forth “ ‘a positive and definite standard of care * * * whereby a jury may determine whether there has been a violation thereof by finding a single issue of fact,’ ” a violation of that statute constitutes negligence per se.	1	2000–2000
Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co. green ohio · 1998 2 sentences 2000Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 677, 680 , 693 N.E.2d 271, 274 ; Gore, supra, 235 Conn. at 373 , 665 A.2d at 1347 . {¶ 14} But where a statute sets forth “ ‘a positive and definite standard of care * * * whereby a jury may determine whether there has been a violation thereof by finding a single issue of fact,’ ” a violation of that statute constitutes negligence per se. 2000Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 677, 680 , 693 N.E.2d 271, 274 ; Gore, supra, 235 Conn. at 373 , 665 A.2d at 1347 . {¶ 14} But where a statute sets forth “ ‘a positive and definite standard of care * * * whereby a jury may determine whether there has been a violation thereof by finding a single issue of fact,’ ” a violation of that statute constitutes negligence per se.	1	2000–2000
Hernandez v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc. green ohio · 1995 2 sentences 1998Hernandez v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 302, 304 , 649 N.E.2d 1215, 1216 . 1998Hernandez v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 302, 304 , 649 N.E.2d 1215, 1216 .	1	1998–1998
Crucible Steel Forge Co. v. Moir neutral ca6 · 1915 1 sentence 1954Among instances where the violation of a legislative enactment constituted negligence per se are: Violation of Section 6307-25, General Code (Section 4511.25, Revised Code)’, driving a vehicle on the left half of the roadway except under certain circumstances (see Brandt v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc., 153 Ohio St., 429 , 92 N. E. [2d], 1; Mahoning Savings & Trust Co., Exr., v. Kellner, Admx., 131 Ohio St., 69 , 1 N. E. [2d], 616); violation of Section 1027, General Code (Section 4107.23, Revised Code), requiring that keys, bolts, set screws and all parts of wheels, shafting or other revolvi	1	1954–1954
Brandt v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc. green ohio · 1950 1 sentence 1954Among instances where the violation of a legislative enactment constituted negligence per se are: Violation of Section 6307-25, General Code (Section 4511.25, Revised Code)’, driving a vehicle on the left half of the roadway except under certain circumstances (see Brandt v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc., 153 Ohio St., 429 , 92 N. E. [2d], 1; Mahoning Savings & Trust Co., Exr., v. Kellner, Admx., 131 Ohio St., 69 , 1 N. E. [2d], 616); violation of Section 1027, General Code (Section 4107.23, Revised Code), requiring that keys, bolts, set screws and all parts of wheels, shafting or other revolvi	1	1954–1954
Mahoning Savings & Trust Co. v. Kellner neutral ohio · 1936 1 sentence 1954Among instances where the violation of a legislative enactment constituted negligence per se are: Violation of Section 6307-25, General Code (Section 4511.25, Revised Code)’, driving a vehicle on the left half of the roadway except under certain circumstances (see Brandt v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc., 153 Ohio St., 429 , 92 N. E. [2d], 1; Mahoning Savings & Trust Co., Exr., v. Kellner, Admx., 131 Ohio St., 69 , 1 N. E. [2d], 616); violation of Section 1027, General Code (Section 4107.23, Revised Code), requiring that keys, bolts, set screws and all parts of wheels, shafting or other revolvi	1	1954–1954

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 5321.04 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OH 14 (1954–2026) AK 3 (1976–1986)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check