From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bowman v. G. Bros. Co.

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 11, 1952
158 Ohio St. 121 (Ohio 1952)

Summary

In Bowman, a slip and fall action, the court ruled that although there is a common law duty whereby landlords are responsible for maintaining common areas, plaintiff was injured on steps leading only to her own apartment, thus, no common law duty arose.

Summary of this case from Pratham Design Innovation Pvt. Ltd. v. Infovision 21

Opinion

No. 33060

Decided June 11, 1952.

Supreme Court — Dismissal — No debatable constitutional question involved — Landlord and tenant — Outside stairway to second floor apartment — Used exclusively by one tenant — Landlord's limited use for janitor services — Not sufficient to constitute control — Landlord not liable to tenant who slipped on ice, when — No legal duty on landlord to remove ice — Mere breach of contract not predicate for tort liability — Jury trial — Section 5, Article I, Constitution — Courts of Appeals — Concurrences necessary for reversal — Section 6, Article IV, Constitution.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga county.

Messrs. Sieman, Sieman Sieman and Mr. Joseph Horwitz, for appellant.

Messrs. McConnell, Blackmore, Cory Burke and Mr. Arthur E. Griffith, for appellee.


It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

Appeal dismissed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, MIDDLETON, TAFT, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bowman v. G. Bros. Co.

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 11, 1952
158 Ohio St. 121 (Ohio 1952)

In Bowman, a slip and fall action, the court ruled that although there is a common law duty whereby landlords are responsible for maintaining common areas, plaintiff was injured on steps leading only to her own apartment, thus, no common law duty arose.

Summary of this case from Pratham Design Innovation Pvt. Ltd. v. Infovision 21
Case details for

Bowman v. G. Bros. Co.

Case Details

Full title:BOWMAN, APPELLANT v. GOLDSMITH BROTHERS CO., APPELLEE

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 11, 1952

Citations

158 Ohio St. 121 (Ohio 1952)
107 N.E.2d 114

Citing Cases

Sidle v. Humphrey

1. Where the owner of an apartment building, which contains a number of separate dwelling units, reserves…

Young v. Mager

Burdick v. Cheadle, 26 Ohio St. 393; Shindelbeck v. Moon, 32 Ohio St. 264; and Brown v. Cleveland Baseball…