Barber v. Mid-Towne Associates

Ohio Court of Appeals

Barber v. Mid-Towne Associates

575 N.E.2d 879, 62 Ohio App. 3d 384, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 5991

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 1990

DocketNo. C-890083.

StatusPublished

This text of 575 N.E.2d 879 (Barber v. Mid-Towne Associates) 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

Barber v. Mid-Towne Associates, 575 N.E.2d 879, 62 Ohio App. 3d 384, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 5991 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon an appeal from the decision of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.

Plaintiff-appellant, Carrie Barber, in her sole assignment of error, claims that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of her lessor and its management company, defendants-appellees Mid-Towne Associates (“Mid-Towne”) and Queen City Management, Inc. (“Queen City”).

Barber, an elderly woman, was injured when another tenant, Ted Protich, fell on her in the lobby of their apartment building. Deposition testimony indicates that Protich had been observed by Queen City’s employees staggering in a state of intoxication on prior occasions. Shortly before the accident, Protich was told by the receptionist to return to his apartment because he was once again drunk and staggering in the lobby. No further steps were taken by Mid-Towne and Queen City to remove Protich from the common area.

Barber contends that summary judgment was improperly granted because questions of material fact remained to be resolved at trial as to whether a specific duty was breached by Mid-Towne and Queen City and whether the breach was the proximate cause of Barber’s injury. The contention is not well taken because the landlord and the building manager were not under a common-law duty to perform acts beyond their ability lawfully to control or restrain the inebriated tenant.

In general, legal responsibility follows legal control in landlord-tenant relationships. Cf. Thomas v. Hart Realty, Inc. (1984), 17 Ohio App.3d 83, 85, 17 OBR 145, 146, 477 N.E.2d 668, 670, citing 2 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965) 250-254, Sections 360 and 361. Protich was lawfully present in the common area of the apartment building, and the record fails to demonstrate that he had committed any violations of the law or of his lease prior to the accident which would have enabled the landlord or the building manager to command his removal. Further, R.C. 5321.04 cannot be construed to extend to the facts of this case in which no structural defect existed in the premises. See Carmichael v. Colonial Square Apts. (1987), 38 Ohio App.3d 131, 132, 528 N.E.2d 585, 587. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Shannon, P.J., and Gorman, J., concur. Hildebrandt, J., dissents.

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

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon an appeal from the decision of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.

Plaintiff-appellant, Carrie Barber, in her sole assignment of error, claims that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of her lessor and its management company, defendants-appellees Mid-Towne Associates (“Mid-Towne”) and Queen City Management, Inc. (“Queen City”).

Barber, an elderly woman, was injured when another tenant, Ted Protich, fell on her in the lobby of their apartment building. Deposition testimony indicates that Protich had been observed by Queen City’s employees staggering in a state of intoxication on prior occasions. Shortly before the accident, Protich was told by the receptionist to return to his apartment because he was once again drunk and staggering in the lobby. No further steps were taken by Mid-Towne and Queen City to remove Protich from the common area.

Barber contends that summary judgment was improperly granted because questions of material fact remained to be resolved at trial as to whether a specific duty was breached by Mid-Towne and Queen City and whether the breach was the proximate cause of Barber’s injury. The contention is not well taken because the landlord and the building manager were not under a common-law duty to perform acts beyond their ability lawfully to control or restrain the inebriated tenant.

In general, legal responsibility follows legal control in landlord-tenant relationships. Cf. Thomas v. Hart Realty, Inc. (1984), 17 Ohio App.3d 83, 85, 17 OBR 145, 146, 477 N.E.2d 668, 670, citing 2 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965) 250-254, Sections 360 and 361. Protich was lawfully present in the common area of the apartment building, and the record fails to demonstrate that he had committed any violations of the law or of his lease prior to the accident which would have enabled the landlord or the building manager to command his removal. Further, R.C. 5321.04 cannot be construed to extend to the facts of this case in which no structural defect existed in the premises. See Carmichael v. Colonial Square Apts. (1987), 38 Ohio App.3d 131, 132, 528 N.E.2d 585, 587. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Shannon, P.J., and Gorman, J., concur. Hildebrandt, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 N.E.2d 879, 62 Ohio App. 3d 384, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 5991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-mid-towne-associates-ohioctapp-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack