Pulley v. Malek
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
- Correia v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- John Beacham v. Lee-Norse and Ingersoll-Rand and Does I Through V, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1983
- Zahrte v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1983
- Jones v. White Motor Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1978
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.