Legal Opinion

Washington Township v. Rapp

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 10, 1934No. 2977PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By KLINGER, J.

The plaintiff can recover only under the facts pleaded under the doctrine of respondeat superior; and under the common law this dpctrine was not available as against a political subdivision, such as the defendant in this action.

Dunn v Agricultural Society, 46 Oh St, 93;

38 Cyc., 640;

1 L.R.A., 754.

So that, if the plaintiff can recover from the township, it must be by virtue of §3298-17, GC. Since this statute is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed.

Board of Commissioners v Transfer & Storage Co., 75 Oh St, 244;

Ebert v Commissioners, 75 Oh St, 474;

Le…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Gause v. PeelerOhio Court of Appeals · 1931

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hook v. BakerDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2004
  2. Forbis v. Springfield Township TrusteesOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. Gutridge v. Suburban Steel Supply Co., 2007 Ca 00110 (7-30-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API