Legal Opinion

Jeffers v. Olexo

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1989No. 88-470PublishedCited by 230 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

We will first consider whether a question of material fact existed as to Dawes, thus making summary judgment inappropriate.

I

The court of appeals held that material questions of fact existed as to Dawes’ duty to control or retrieve the helium tanks in spite of the agreement entered into by the Campaign Committee with Dawes. This action sounds in negligence.

As to the elements of a cause of action in negligence it can be said that “[i]t is rudimentary that in order to establish actionable negligence, one must show the existence of a duty, a breach of the duty, and an injury resulting proximately…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Strother v. HutchinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Light v. Ohio UniversityOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Di Gildo v. CaponiOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Clemets v. HestonOhio Court of Appeals · 1985

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

3Cited by230 opinions

  1. Mussivand v. DavidOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Simmers v. Bentley Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. V & M STAR STEEL v. Centimark Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
  5. Feichtner v. Ohio Department of TransportationOhio Court of Appeals · 1995

225 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