Legal Opinion

Sikora v. Wenzel

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 24, 2000No. Nos. 99-1301 and 99-1323PublishedCited by 92 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.

With this decision we confirm that the doctrine of negligence per se countenances lack of notice of a defective condition as a legal excuse. We reverse the appellate court’s determination that notice is irrelevant and strict liability applies, and instead hold that a violation of R.C. 5321.04(A)(1) (failing to comply with the Ohio Basic Building Code) constitutes negligence per se, but that such liability may be excused by a landlord’s lack of actual or constructive notice of the defective condition.

In Shroades v. Rental Homes, Inc., supra, this court set forth the broad principle that…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Ass'n v. R.E. Roark Companies, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Chambers v. St. Mary's SchoolOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Reynolds v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by92 opinions

  1. Robinson v. BatesOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of CommerceOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Mann v. Northgate Investors, L.L.C.Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  4. City of New York v. A-1 Jewelry & Pawn, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2007
  5. Marich v. Bob Bennett Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2008

87 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