City of Cleveland v. Amato
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.
This action is based upon the charge of failure upon the part of the city to keep its sidewalks “open, in repair, and free from nuisance,” as required by the provisions of Section 3714, General Code. The theory upon which this case was tried and submitted was that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, and it was evidently upon that question that the Court of Appeals divided.
The sole facts upon which plaintiff based her right to recover, as disclosed by the evidence, were that five days prior to her claimed injury an employee of the city water department of the city of Cleveland had…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- City of Corbin v. BentonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Gunning v. KingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- City of Natchez v. CranfieldMississippi Supreme Court · 1929
3Cited by37 opinions
- Taylor v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Ruwe v. Board of Township TrusteesOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Fink v. New York Central Rd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
- Soltz v. Colony Recreation CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1949
- Cusumano v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1967
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.