Geideman v. City of Bay Village
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The city of Bay Village contends that Section 723.01, Revised Code, imposes no duty upon it to install guardrails, barriers or curbs between portions of highways primarily used for vehicular travel or parking and sidewalks adjacent thereto, and that the absence of such barriers under the circumstances of this case does not as a matter of law constitute a nuisance within the contemplation of that section.
In Taylor v. City of Cincinnati, 143 Ohio St. 426, 447, it is said: “Municipalities, in the management and control of their streets and public grounds, act in a governmental capacity and hence…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Taylor v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Storen v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1940
- Shipley v. City of Arroyo GrandeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
3Cited by9 opinions
- Dickerhoof v. City of CantonOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Holdshoe v. WhineryOhio Supreme Court · 1968
- Williamson v. PavlovichOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Strunk v. Dayton Power & Light Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- Lovick v. City of MarionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.