Legal Opinion

Daus v. Mahoning Co. Comm.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 21, 1927PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFarr, J.

“If liable at all, it is by virtue of a part of Section 2408 GC.
“It is conceded that this is a highway and a bridge under the control of the County Commissioners and it is sought to charge them with liability for this accident under the provisions of this section of the General Code, and upon the theory that this ledge of rocks was an abutment and was in fact a part of the bridge and that the County Commissioners knew or ought to have known, in the exercise of reasonable care, of the danger to Lyle Daus and other persons passing under the bridge, by reason of this ledge of rocks.
“It must be…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Heckert v. PatrickOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Sheley v. Swing, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API