Foti v. Lewis, Admr.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Foti v. Lewis, Admr.

161 N.E. 365, 27 Ohio App. 535, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 69, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 257

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 9, 1925

Docket886

StatusPublished

This text of 161 N.E. 365 (Foti v. Lewis, Admr.) 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

Foti v. Lewis, Admr., 161 N.E. 365, 27 Ohio App. 535, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 69, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 257 (Ohio Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

WASHBURN, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This action was one in the Summit Common Pleas in which John Lewis, Administrator, sought to recover damages from his landlord, Frank Poti, for the wrongful death of a 5-year-old son. The parents of the child were tenants of Poti living in one of his houses, near the scene of the accident. The boy with some playmates was playing marbles by the side of a wall, which stood over a walk leading to the homes of the tenants; when it fell and killed the child. Said wall was not close to the house in which the boy lived, but the children and tenants were in the habit of going past the wall to and from their homes.

Poti admitted he had arranged to have the wall repaired some months before the accident; and acknowledged that’ a tenant had moved out because of the close proximity of said wall to his house. The Common Pleas returned judgment in favor of Lewis. Poti claimed that the boy was a trespasser when the accident occured and no liability on his part should exist.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. The inference drawn from Foti’s testimony was that the walks to the houses were under his control, and under the circumstances the boy had a right to be on the premises and Poti owed him the duty to see that the walk along side the wall was maintained in a reasonable safe condition; and the liability of Foti did not depend upon wanton and willful negi-gence.

2. The general rule that where a landlord *70 reserves to himself the control of part of the premises, for common use of tenants, such as stairways, halls or walks, he is obligated to maintain such parts in a reasonably safe condition, obtains here.

Attorneys—Staley and Trunko for Foti; Ben-ner, Harter, Walker & Watters for Lewis, all of Akron.

Judgment of Common Pleas affirmed.

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

WASHBURN, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This action was one in the Summit Common Pleas in which John Lewis, Administrator, sought to recover damages from his landlord, Frank Poti, for the wrongful death of a 5-year-old son. The parents of the child were tenants of Poti living in one of his houses, near the scene of the accident. The boy with some playmates was playing marbles by the side of a wall, which stood over a walk leading to the homes of the tenants; when it fell and killed the child. Said wall was not close to the house in which the boy lived, but the children and tenants were in the habit of going past the wall to and from their homes.

Poti admitted he had arranged to have the wall repaired some months before the accident; and acknowledged that’ a tenant had moved out because of the close proximity of said wall to his house. The Common Pleas returned judgment in favor of Lewis. Poti claimed that the boy was a trespasser when the accident occured and no liability on his part should exist.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. The inference drawn from Foti’s testimony was that the walks to the houses were under his control, and under the circumstances the boy had a right to be on the premises and Poti owed him the duty to see that the walk along side the wall was maintained in a reasonable safe condition; and the liability of Foti did not depend upon wanton and willful negi-gence.

2. The general rule that where a landlord *70 reserves to himself the control of part of the premises, for common use of tenants, such as stairways, halls or walks, he is obligated to maintain such parts in a reasonably safe condition, obtains here.

Attorneys—Staley and Trunko for Foti; Ben-ner, Harter, Walker & Watters for Lewis, all of Akron.

Judgment of Common Pleas affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 N.E. 365, 27 Ohio App. 535, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 69, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foti-v-lewis-admr-ohioctapp-1925.