Shump v. First Continental-Robinwood Associates
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
All parties and both lower courts have determined that the general law of premises liability governs the outcome of this case and have shaped their arguments accordingly. The question as to whether there is any evidence that First Continental acted willfully or wantonly with regard to Burnside arises only if we find that a licensor-licensee relationship existed between those parties under the law of premises liability.
*417Although we believe that this case involves the law of premises liability in a broad sense, we do not agree that the duty that First Continental owed Burnside should be governed…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Stephens v. StearnsIdaho Supreme Court · 1984
- Sargent v. RossSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1973
- Shroades v. Rental Homes, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
- Young v. GarwackiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
- Becker v. IRM Corp.California Supreme Court · 1985
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by98 opinions
- Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Brandy Andler v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, IncCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
- Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
- Lakeview Associates, Ltd. v. MaesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
- Merrill v. JansmaWyoming Supreme Court · 2004
93 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.