Legal Opinion

Jennings Buick, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 1978No. 77-1365PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

The city of Cincinnati appeals,■ having set-forth the following propositions of law;

1. “The Court of Appeals is bound by stare decisis to follow established precedent which holds that a plaintiff cannot recover for injury from a water main break unless he proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the water supplier was negligent.”

2. “The maintenance by a city of over three thousand miles of water mains is not an inherently dangerous activity to which the doctrine of strict liability would -apply.”

3. “Before a water supplier can be held strictly liable for a break in a water main, the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Taylor v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Metzger v. Pennsylvania, Ohio & Detroit Rd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Lubin v. City of Iowa CitySupreme Court of Iowa · 1964
  4. Bridgeman-Russell Co. v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  5. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1971

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Quigley v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2012
  3. John T. Arnold Associates, Inc. v. City of WichitaCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1980
  4. State Ex Rel. Schoener v. Board of County CommissionersOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. Nationwide Insurance Co. v. JordanHamilton County Municipal Court · 1994

2 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