Legal Opinion

DeLuca v. Bowden

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1975No. 74-512PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteen, J.

In Holbrock v. Hamilton Distributing, supra, this court held that a child under the age of seven is conclusively presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence. Our goal in that case, stated at page 189, was “a *394clear and simple rule which we believe will reach just and accurate results while also achieving a desirable judicial economy.”

The instant case presents the question of whether a child under the age of seven is liable for primary negligence or for an intentional tort. Appellees suggest that our decision in Holbrock does not necessarily require that children of tender years be…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ellis v. D'AngeloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  2. Horton v. ReavesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1974
  3. Garratt v. DaileyWashington Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Johnson v. ButterworthSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1934
  5. Queen Insurance Co. v. HammondMichigan Supreme Court · 1965

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Stinespring v. Natorp Garden Stores, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. Camerlinck v. ThomasNebraska Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Hunter v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Ali v. Lucas Cnty. Dog WardenOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. D'Amico v. BurnsOhio Court of Appeals · 1984

4 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