Legal Opinion

Cooper v. Roose

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 20, 1949No. 31513PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.

The first question to be determined is whether the defendant had either occupation or control of the second-floor porch at the time of plaintiff’s fall. This is because liability in tort is an incident to occupation or control. Berkowitz v. Winston, 128 Ohio St., 611, 193 N. E., 343; Ripple v. Mahoning National Bank, 143 Ohio St., 614, 56 N. E. (2d), 289.

In order to establish that defendant retained control of such portion of the premises, plaintiff relies upon the following testimony as to what was said by her and the landlord at the time she rented the second and third floors of the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Cullings v. GoetzNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. Tuttle v. George H. Gilbert Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
  3. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway Co. v. BinghamOhio Supreme Court · 1876
  4. Frewen v. PageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
  5. Berkowitz v. WinstonOhio Supreme Court · 1934

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

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Health CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Shroades v. Rental Homes, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Shump v. First Continental-Robinwood AssociatesOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Wills v. Frank Hoover SupplyOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Flint v. HolbrookOhio Court of Appeals · 1992

48 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