common-law negligence claim in Ohio

2013No.2010 CA 112, 2011–Ohio–2233, ¶ 45 citing Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2002–Ohio–4210, 773 N.E.2d 1018 , ¶ 22.

2013Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2002-Ohio-4210 , 773 N.E.2d 1018 , ¶ 22.

2013Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2002-Ohio-4210 , 773 N.E.2d 1018 , ¶ 22.

2011Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 , 773 N.E.2d 1018 , 2002-Ohio-4210, ¶ 22 .

2020The court’s determination was based not on a finding that Ohio recognizes such a common-law negligence claim, but that “Ohio’s procedural rules permit ‘alternative or hypothetical pleadings, or even the use of inconsistent claims.’” (Citations omitted.) Id. at 427 .

2019Ciotto’s claim is not rooted in premises liability. {¶ 101} As I explain below, while I agree that Ciotto does not establish a “special relationship” that is sufficient to support the negligence claims against Hinkle that are based upon her alleged nonfeasance (i.e., Hinkle’s failure to control her son and prevent his criminal actions), Ciotto clearly alleges a common-law negligence claim that is based upon Hinkle’s own purported malfeasance (i.e., Hinkle’s practice of storing her loaded 12 The Supreme Court of Rhode Island relied on this theory in finding a legal duty in Volpe v. Gallagher, 8

2017Lorain No. 13CA010405, 2015-Ohio-49, ¶ 18 . {¶13} To establish a common-law negligence claim, “the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the defendant breached the duty of care, and that the defendant’s breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.” Horrisberger at 498 .

2012No. 2010 CA 112, 2011-Ohio-2233 , ¶ 45 citing Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2002–Ohio–4210, 773 N.E.2d 1018 , ¶ 22.

1997Thus, in Fifer v. Buffalo Cafe (1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 297 , 601 N.E.2d 601 , the court held that an administrator of the estate of the decedent, who died of acute alcohol intoxication after consuming liquor at defendant’s cafe, did not have a common-law negligence claim against defendant based on statutes prohibiting the sale of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person or to a person who habitually drinks alcohol to excess.

1997Thus, in Fifer v. Buffalo Cafe (1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 297 , 601 N.E.2d 601 , the court held that an administrator of the estate of the decedent, who died of acute alcohol intoxication after consuming liquor at defendant’s cafe, did not have a common-law negligence claim against defendant based on statutes prohibiting the sale of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person or to a person who habitually drinks alcohol to excess.

1988Strunk v. Dayton Power & Light Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 429, 431 , 6 OBR 473, 475, 453 N.E. 2d 604, 606 .

1988Strunk v. Dayton Power & Light Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 429, 431 , 6 OBR 473, 475, 453 N.E. 2d 604, 606 .