Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pulley v. Malek

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 23, 1986No. 85-1526Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHolmes, J.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that a directed verdict for appellee on the issue of liability is inappropriate. However, I must dissent from the majority’s discussion and conclusions as to the assumption of risk issue because it ignores the continuing existence of the common-law defense even after the statutory creation of strict liability.

R.C. 955.28 makes it clear that someone who is injured by. a dog because that person was tormenting or abusing the dog cannot hold the owner liable for such injury. It follows that a directed verdict in favor of a plaintiff in such a case is…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Correia v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  3. John Beacham v. Lee-Norse and Ingersoll-Rand and Does I Through V, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1983
  4. Zahrte v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Jones v. White Motor Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1978

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