Legal Opinion

Bennett v. Stanley

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 2001No. 00-108PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

In this case we are called upon to determine what level of duty a property owner owes to a child trespasser. We resolve the question by adopting the attractive nuisance doctrine set forth in Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965), Section 339. We also hold that an adult who attempts to rescue a child from an attractive nuisance assumes the status of the child, and is owed a duty of ordinary care by the property owner.

Factual and Procedural Background

When Rickey G. Bennett, plaintiff-appellant, arrived home in the late afternoon of March 20,1997, he found his two young daughters crying. The…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Railroad Co. v. StoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  2. Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Light v. Ohio UniversityOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Di Gildo v. CaponiOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Wills v. Frank Hoover SupplyOhio Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Senogles v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
  2. Chesher v. NeyerDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2005
  3. Korengel v. Little Miami Golf Ctr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019
  4. Foggin v. Fire Protection Specialists, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. McCullough v. Youngstown School Dist.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019

13 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