City of Cincinnati v. Stone

Ohio Supreme Court

City of Cincinnati v. Stone

5 Ohio St. 38

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 15, 1855

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 5 Ohio St. 38 (City of Cincinnati v. Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Cincinnati v. Stone, 5 Ohio St. 38 (Ohio 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

Bartley, J.

The city of Cincinnati having given a contract to a person to regrade and repave a street, providing in the contract for “the work'to be done under the direction of the city civil engineer," or agent appointed by the city council for the same, who shall have entire control over the manner of doing and shaping all, or any part of the same, and whose directions must be strictly obeyed,” etc., the contractor carelessly and improperly left piles of stones and materials for the work at a place near or about the gutter of the street, where a nuisance was likely to be created, whereby, at the time of a .rain, the water being obstructed, flowed back and over the pavement, on the premises and building of the defendants in error, doing the damage complained of.

The liability of one person for damages arising from the negligence or misfeasance of another, on the principle of respondeat superior, is confined in its application to the relation, of master and servant, or principal and agent, and does not extend to cases of independent contracts not creating the relation of principal and agent, and where the employer does not retain the control over the mode and manner of the performance of the work under the contract.

But where the employer retains the control and direction over the mode and manner of doing the work, and an injury results from the negligence or misconduct of the contractor, or his servant or agent, the employer is placed under a liability equal and [42]*42similar to that which exists in the ordinary case of principal and agent.

In addition to the fact, in this case, that the city of Cincinnati retained the entire control and direction over the work, under the contract, it was a public duty enjoined on the city to remove all nuisances from the streets of the city, and to make no contracts for the improvement of the streets by which any nuisance would be created on the premises of the adjacent proprietors ; the city was, therefore, clearly liable for the injury sustained by the negligence of the contractor, or of any of his subordinates in the performance of the work.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Bartley, J.

The city of Cincinnati having given a contract to a person to regrade and repave a street, providing in the contract for “the work'to be done under the direction of the city civil engineer," or agent appointed by the city council for the same, who shall have entire control over the manner of doing and shaping all, or any part of the same, and whose directions must be strictly obeyed,” etc., the contractor carelessly and improperly left piles of stones and materials for the work at a place near or about the gutter of the street, where a nuisance was likely to be created, whereby, at the time of a .rain, the water being obstructed, flowed back and over the pavement, on the premises and building of the defendants in error, doing the damage complained of.

The liability of one person for damages arising from the negligence or misfeasance of another, on the principle of respondeat superior, is confined in its application to the relation, of master and servant, or principal and agent, and does not extend to cases of independent contracts not creating the relation of principal and agent, and where the employer does not retain the control over the mode and manner of the performance of the work under the contract.

But where the employer retains the control and direction over the mode and manner of doing the work, and an injury results from the negligence or misconduct of the contractor, or his servant or agent, the employer is placed under a liability equal and [42]*42similar to that which exists in the ordinary case of principal and agent.

In addition to the fact, in this case, that the city of Cincinnati retained the entire control and direction over the work, under the contract, it was a public duty enjoined on the city to remove all nuisances from the streets of the city, and to make no contracts for the improvement of the streets by which any nuisance would be created on the premises of the adjacent proprietors ; the city was, therefore, clearly liable for the injury sustained by the negligence of the contractor, or of any of his subordinates in the performance of the work.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio St. 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-cincinnati-v-stone-ohio-1855.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack