11 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2018 0 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sidle v. Humphreygreen2 sentences2002See Sidle v. Humphrey (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 45 , 233 N.E.2d 589 , paragraph one of the syllabus; Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 203 , 480 N.E.2d 474 . 2000Sidle v. Humphrey (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 45 , did not create the open and obvious danger doctrine, but rather sanctioned its application by citing three of the leading treatises on Torts of that time. | 2 | 3 |
Simmers v. Bentley Construction Co.green2 sentences2002Co. , 64 Ohio St.3d at 642 , 1992-Ohio-42 , 597 N.E.2d at 504 . {¶ 53} The open-and-obvious-danger doctrine goes to the landowner's duty to warn and protect against open and obvious dangers. 2002Co. , 64 Ohio St.3d at 642 , 1992-Ohio-42 , 597 N.E.2d at 504 . {¶ 53} The open-and-obvious-danger doctrine goes to the landowner's duty to warn and protect against open and obvious dangers. | 1 | 3 |
LaCourse v. Fleitzgreen2 sentences2002See, generally, LaCourse v. Fleitz (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 209 , 503 N.E.2d 159 , syllabus (extending the open-and-obvious-danger doctrine to the removal of ice and snow on the basis that R.C. 5321.04 (A)(3), a provision not at issue in this case, does not impose such a duty on landlords). 2002See, generally, LaCourse v. Fleitz (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 209 , 503 N.E.2d 159 , syllabus (extending the open-and-obvious-danger doctrine to the removal of ice and snow on the basis that R.C. 5321.04 (A)(3), a provision not at issue in this case, does not impose such a duty on landlords). | 1 | 2 |
Harris v. Richmond Park Apts., Unpublished Decision (8-5-2004)green2 sentences2005See Schoefield v. Beulah Rd., Inc. (Aug. 9, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-1475, and Harris v. Richmond Park Apartments, Cuyahoga App. No. 84067, 2004-Ohio-4081, at ¶ 24 . {¶ 18} In Schoefield, this court made the following determination: "As a matter of law, the open and obvious danger doctrine did not abrogate [the landlord's] duty under R.C. 5321.04 (A)(2) to repair the defective landing/steps and, as to factual issues, reasonable minds could come to different conclusions as to the comparative negligence of the parties." In Harris , the plaintiff claimed a breach of a duty imposed upon landl 2005The court reasoned that because "the openand-obvious doctrine goes to negating the common law duty of ordinary care owed by premises owners to their business invitees," and the landlord's duty pursuant to the provisions of R.C. 5321.04 (A) relates to a different duty, "[t]he open-and-obvious doctrine does not negate defendants landlord's statutory duty." Harris , at ¶ 24, citing Schoefield. {¶ 19} Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the trial court correctly determined that this case does not involve R.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mann v. Northgate Investors, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2018No. 06AP-1227, 2007-Ohio-2791 , 2007 WL 1640850 , ¶ 24. {¶ 41} "A violation of the duty imposed by R.C. 5321.04(A)(3) constitutes negligence per se and obviates the open-and-obvious-danger doctrine." Mann v. Northgate Investors, L.L.C. , 138 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2014-Ohio-455 , 5 N.E.3d 594 , ¶ 33. 2018No. 06AP-1227, 2007-Ohio-2791 , 2007 WL 1640850 , ¶ 24. {¶ 41} "A violation of the duty imposed by R.C. 5321.04(A)(3) constitutes negligence per se and obviates the open-and-obvious-danger doctrine." Mann v. Northgate Investors, L.L.C. , 138 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2014-Ohio-455 , 5 N.E.3d 594 , ¶ 33. | 2 | 2015–2018 |
Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002See Sidle v. Humphrey (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 45 , 233 N.E.2d 589 , paragraph one of the syllabus; Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 203 , 480 N.E.2d 474 . 2002See Sidle v. Humphrey (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 45 , 233 N.E.2d 589 , paragraph one of the syllabus; Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 203 , 480 N.E.2d 474 . | 2 | 1999–2002 |
Lilly v. Bradford Invest. Co., 06ap-1227 (6-7-2007)
green
1 sentence2018No. 06AP-1227, 2007-Ohio-2791 , 2007 WL 1640850 , ¶ 24. {¶ 41} "A violation of the duty imposed by R.C. 5321.04(A)(3) constitutes negligence per se and obviates the open-and-obvious-danger doctrine." Mann v. Northgate Investors, L.L.C. , 138 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2014-Ohio-455 , 5 N.E.3d 594 , ¶ 33. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018"The concept of negligence per se allows the plaintiff to prove the first two prongs of the negligence test, duty and breach of duty, by merely showing that the defendant committed or omitted a specific act prohibited or required by statute; no other facts are relevant." Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc. , 122 Ohio St.3d 120 , 2009-Ohio-2495 , 909 N.E.2d 120 , ¶ 15. 2018"The concept of negligence per se allows the plaintiff to prove the first two prongs of the negligence test, duty and breach of duty, by merely showing that the defendant committed or omitted a specific act prohibited or required by statute; no other facts are relevant." Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc. , 122 Ohio St.3d 120 , 2009-Ohio-2495 , 909 N.E.2d 120 , ¶ 15. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kirksey v. Summit Cty. Parking Deck, Unpublished Decision (12-21-2005)
green
1 sentence2017As noted, in an open and obvious danger analysis, “[t]he determinative issue is whether the condition [was] observable.” Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Stockhauser v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati
green
2 sentences2010See Kimball v. Cincinnati (1953), 160 Ohio St. 370 , 373-374, 116 N.E.2d 708 ; Stockhauser v. Archidiocese of Cincinnati (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 29, 33 , 646 N.E.2d 198 . 2010See Kimball v. Cincinnati (1953), 160 Ohio St. 370 , 373-374, 116 N.E.2d 708 ; Stockhauser v. Archidiocese of Cincinnati (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 29, 33 , 646 N.E.2d 198 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 36 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006The open and obvious danger doctrine "relates to the threshold issue of duty." Id. at 82 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Pond v. Leslein
green
1 sentence2002Proximate cause was still an issue, and the trial court properly concluded that the jury should resolve any issues relating to comparative negligence." (Emphasis added.) Id. {¶ 56} We adopt the reasoning of Schoefield : the open-and-obvious-danger doctrine was simply not intended as an exception to the statutory duties imposed on a landlord, and which are at issue in this case. {¶ 57} As an aside, we stress that the duties at issue in this case were based on the Wolfes' failure to install a handrail and rain gutters, not the Wolfes' failure to clear ice and snow. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co.
green
1 sentence2002Co. , 64 Ohio St.3d at 642 , 1992-Ohio-42 , 597 N.E.2d at 504 . {¶ 53} The open-and-obvious-danger doctrine goes to the landowner's duty to warn and protect against open and obvious dangers. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.