Legal Opinion · Dissent

Power v. Boles

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 26, 1996No. 95APE05-537Published

1DissentLazarus, Judge

Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the city of Columbus (“appellee”) owed no duty to the decedent, I dissent. Appellee’s duty to the decedent was the statutory duty to keep the streets free from nuisance, pursuant to R.C. 723.01. The fact that appellee owed no duty to decedent based on their employment relationship does not affect the duty that appellee owed based on R.C. 723.01.

Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and, construing all evidence in favor of the…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Taylor v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Health CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Vogel v. WellsOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Franks v. LopezOhio Supreme Court · 1994

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API