Rothfuss v. Hamilton Masonic Temple Co.

Appellants’ six propositions-.of law can be condensed-into two legal questions for this court to. consider. ' - •'' . ■ ' .

Appellants’ first contention is that the trial court did *180not err in its charge to the jury that the appellee maintained a qualified nuisance and was negligent as a matter of law.

This court has recogninzed that the duty owed hy possessors of land to those who may be injured on their premises is a different duty than the duty owed to ordinary social guests, as a result of the doctrine of qualified nuisance. See paragraph three of the syllabus in Taylor v. Cincinnati (1944),…