Legal Opinion

Brinkman v. Ross

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1993No. 92-1909PublishedCited by 107 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

In Ohio, it is well established that an owner or occupier of land

ordinarily owes no duty to business invitees to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from the private sidewalks on the premises, or to warn the invitee of the dangers associated with such natural accumulations of ice and snow. In Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy-Berwick, Inc. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 38, 40 O.O.2d 52, 227 N.E.2d 603, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus, this court held that:

“1. When the owner or occupier of business premises is not shown to have notice, actual or implied, that the natural accumulation of snow…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sidle v. HumphreyOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy-Berwick, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Lopatkovich v. City of TiffinOhio Supreme Court · 1986

3Cited by107 opinions

  1. Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Dawn Rannals v. Diamond Jo CasinoCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
  3. Aycock v. Sandy Valley Church of God, 2006 Ap 09 0054 (1-8-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  4. Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, 06 Ca 18 (5-23-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Jackson v. Pike Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2010

102 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