Bademan v. Cleveland City

116 N.E.2d 13, 66 Ohio Law. Abs. 175, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 937
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 3, 1952
DocketNo. 22380
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 116 N.E.2d 13 (Bademan v. Cleveland City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bademan v. Cleveland City, 116 N.E.2d 13, 66 Ohio Law. Abs. 175, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 937 (Ohio Ct. App. 1952).

Opinion

OPINION

By SKEEL, PJ.

This appeal comes to this Court on questions of law from a judgment entered for plaintiff in the Municipal Court of Cleveland.

The action is one in which it is claimed that the City of Cleveland wrongfully took, converted and destroyed certain property of plaintiff consisting of tools, scaffolding, bricks and like materials which the plaintiff used in his business of repairing and rebuilding chimneys and roofs.

In his petition the plaintiff attempts to state a cause of action in conversion. The evidence does not support such claim. The evidence considered in its most favorable light in support of plaintiff’s petition shows that the material taken [176]*176was piled next to the regular ash barrels and rubbish containers and the city employees, in the rubbish department, loaded it on ash or rubbish trucks and dumped it on the Fairfield Avenue Dump with other rubbish and ashes.

There is no evidence that the city did anything else than to collect the plaintiff’s property as rubbish and dump it on a city dump. Such a taking does not constitute a wilful taking. At most it would constitute negligence in the operation of the rubbish department.

The operation of the rubbish department is a governmental function. Gorman v. City of Cleveland, 26 Oh Ap 109. It has long been the recognized rule in Ohio that there can be no recovery against a municipal corporation for injuries or damages occasioned by its negligence or nonfeasance in the exercise of a function governmental in character. Wooster v. Asbury, 116 Oh St 281.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Municipal Court must be reversed and final judgment entered for the defendant. Exc. Order see journal.

HURD, J, THOMPSON, J, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hack v. City of Salem
174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 383 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1963)
Broughton v. City of Cleveland
167 Ohio St. (N.S.) 29 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 N.E.2d 13, 66 Ohio Law. Abs. 175, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bademan-v-cleveland-city-ohioctapp-1952.