HURST v. OHIO DEPT. OF REHAB

No. 93-2385.

72 Ohio St.3d 325 (1995)

HURST, EXR., APPELLEE, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, APPELLANT.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided June 21, 1995.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Gooding, Huffman, Kelley & Becker and Matthew C. Huffman, for appellee.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Simon B. Karas and Eric A. Walker, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.


MOYER, C.J.

By its sole proposition of law, the department argues that it is immune from liability by operation of the public duty rule and that the court of appeals incorrectly concluded that the department could be found to be negligent per se. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

The public duty rule was adopted by this court in Sawicki v. Ottawa Hills (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 222...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases