Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jennings Buick, Inc. v. City of Cincinnatigreen2 sentences2024“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not alter the nature of the plaintiff’s claim in a negligence action; it is merely a method of proving the defendant’s negligence through the use of circumstantial evidence.” Jennings Buick, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.2d 167, 170 , 406 N.E.2d 1385 (1980). 2024“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not alter the nature of the plaintiff’s claim in a negligence action; it is merely a method of proving the defendant’s negligence through the use of circumstantial evidence.” Jennings Buick, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.2d 167, 170 , 406 N.E.2d 1385 (1980). | 2 | 5 |
Eicher v. United States Steel Corp.green2 sentences2006Under R.C. 4101.11 , the duty owed to frequenters "is no more than a codification of the common-law duty owed by an owner or occupier of premises to invitees, requiring that the premises be kept in a reasonably safe condition, and that warning be given of dangers of which he has knowledge." Eicher , at 249. 2006Furthermore, because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule that permits, but does not require, the trier of fact to draw an inference of negligence, we conclude the issue raised by plaintiff's fourth cause of action is incorporated within plaintiff's claim of negligence. 3 See id. at 170 (stating that "[t]he doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not alter the nature of plaintiff's claim in a negligence action; it is merely a method of proving the defendant's negligence through the use of circumstantial evidence"). {¶ 7} Plaintiff's third cause of action seeks relief under R.C. | 1 | 1 |
Hake v. George Wiedemann Brewing Co.green2 sentences1985The only way in which a defendant might conceivably be prejudiced by the invocation of the doctrine is where only a specific allegation of negligence is pleaded, and the inference to be drawn from the plaintiff’s proof is inconsistent with the theory of negligence set forth in the complaint. * * *” The two prerequisites which must be met to warrant an instruction to the jury on res ipsa loquitur, which have been set forth by this court in Hake v. Wiedemann Brewing Co. (1970), 23 Ohio St. 2d 65, 66-67 [ 52 O.O.2d 366 ], are as follows: “To warrant application of the rule a plaintiff must adduce 1985The only way in which a defendant might conceivably be prejudiced by the invocation of the doctrine is where only a specific allegation of negligence is pleaded, and the inference to be drawn from the plaintiff’s proof is inconsistent with the theory of negligence set forth in the complaint. * * *” The two prerequisites which must be met to warrant an instruction to the jury on res ipsa loquitur, which have been set forth by this court in Hake v. Wiedemann Brewing Co. (1970), 23 Ohio St. 2d 65, 66-67 [ 52 O.O.2d 366 ], are as follows: “To warrant application of the rule a plaintiff must adduce | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hickey v. Otis Elevator Co.
green
2 sentences2022Nor does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor "supply proof that the instrumentality caused the plaintiff's injuries; rather, such proof of causation is a prerequisite to application of the doctrine in the first instance." Hickey v. Otis Elevator Co., 163 Ohio App.3d 765 , 2005-Ohio-4279, ¶ 27 . {¶ 67} In the present case, it is undisputed there was no direct evidence identifying either the offending substance that caused appellants' injuries or the source of such substance. 2022Nor does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor "supply proof that the instrumentality caused the plaintiff's injuries; rather, such proof of causation is a prerequisite to application of the doctrine in the first instance." Hickey v. Otis Elevator Co., 163 Ohio App.3d 765 , 2005-Ohio-4279, ¶ 27 . {¶ 67} In the present case, it is undisputed there was no direct evidence identifying either the offending substance that caused appellants' injuries or the source of such substance. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Dardy v. Thompson
neutral
1 sentence2019Geauga No. 2013-G-3157, 2014-Ohio-2700 , ¶15 quoting Jennings Buick, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.2d 167 , 169–170 (1980). {¶20} To warrant application of the rule, a plaintiff must adduce evidence in support of two conclusions: (1) That the instrumentality causing the injury was, at the time of the injury, or at the time of the creation of the condition causing the injury, under the exclusive management and control of the defendant; and (2) that the injury occurred under such circumstances that in the ordinary course of events it would not have occurred if ordinary care had been observed. | 1 | 2019–2019 |