Legal Opinion

Elliott v. Nagy

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1986No. 85-266PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, C.J.

In this appeal, appellant urges this court to reconsider its long-standing rejection of the attractive nuisance doctrine and to now adopt that doctrine in Ohio. Given the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are not inclined to do so.

It is undisputed in the instant case that this little girl was not invited upon appellees’ property and that her presence in their backyard was unknown to appellees. Ordinarily, a landowner owes no duty to undiscovered trespassers other than to refrain from injuring such trespassers by willful or wanton conduct. See Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5 Ed. 1984)…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Kirchner v. CrystalOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Shearer v. ShearerOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Sharp Realty Co. v. ForshaOhio Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Jeffers v. OlexoOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Wills v. Frank Hoover SupplyOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. McKinney v. Hartz & Restle Realtors, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Feichtner v. City of ClevelandOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. Boydston v. Norfolk Southern Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1991

20 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