Legal Opinion

Reed v. Molnar

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 1981No. 80-1287PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellants contend that proof of the unsupervised presence of domestic animals, such as cattle, in a public highway results in the animals’ owner or keeper being subject to strict liability in tort for damages resulting therefrom or, alternatively, constitutes negligence per se.

We reject appellants’ contention that a strict liability theory is applicable to this cause. The syllabus of Nixon v. Harris (1968), 15 Ohio St. 2d 105, upon which appellants base their argument, provides, as follows:

“If an animal breaks into the enclosed land of another, or gains entrance into such enclosure by…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Swoboda v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Hake v. George Wiedemann Brewing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Jennings Buick, Inc. v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Cooper v. RooseOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Erdman v. MestrovichOhio Supreme Court · 1951

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Roberts v. Weber & Sons, Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Burnett v. RiceOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Bonds v. Department of Rehabilitation & CorrectionOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. Dee Dee Vanderwater v. Roger HatchCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
  5. Paulin v. John R. Jurgensen Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1982

15 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