Tyler v. Vistula Realty Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
RICHARDS, J
It is contended that the ordinance does not apply to the situation pleaded and disclosed in the opening statement, because the public porch, passageway or corridor was not in the building. We cannot find that such contention is justified. The ordinance was enacted for the safety of the general public and of tenants occupying the building, and must be construed to include such a public passageway and porch or corridor in a hotel or apartment house, as is described. So far, therefore, as the negligence of the defendant is concerned, the direction of the verdict was unwarranted.
It is…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wartik v. Miller, Admx.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1934
- K & S Realty Co. v. RosenOhio Court of Appeals · 1946
- Olsen v. Hayden Holding Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1937
- State ex rel. Baciak v. Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 1949