Kucera v. Grigsby

Ohio Court of Appeals

Kucera v. Grigsby

156 N.E. 249, 24 Ohio App. 457, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 164, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 628

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 1927

Docket7077

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 156 N.E. 249 (Kucera v. Grigsby) 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

Kucera v. Grigsby, 156 N.E. 249, 24 Ohio App. 457, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 164, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 628 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

SULLIVAN, J.

The question to be determined in this action, instituted in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas by Frank Kucera against William Grigsby, is whether the court committed prejudicial error in sustaining a motion to direct a verdict for Grigsby at the close of Kucera’s case on the ground that there was no1 duty owing by Grigs-by, the owner, to Kucera, who was an employee of an independent contractor and engaged as a tinner in the repair or construction of a gutter which was insecurely fastened until the carpenter should permanently fasten the same as a component part of the building.

The Court of Appeals held:

1.An owner of real estate is not only liable to an independent contractor, but to employees of such contractor at work upon the premises; and he is held liable for the exercise of ordinary case to all persons using his property in a proper way.

2. The injury in this case resulted from an unusual if not unnecessary use of Grigsby’s property, namely: the using of the insecure window frame by Kucera instead of a ladder.

3. The real question is whether the owner is liable for injuries resulting to an employee where the proximate cause of the injury is the result of using the owner’s property in such a manner as does violence to its purpose, use and intention.

4. The exercise of ordinary care is the exercise of reasonable care; and to impose the responsibility upon the owner of being responsible for injuries resulting from unexpected uses of his property and contrary to its purpose and design, would be without the domain of reasonableness.

5. There was no need of Kucera to call into use the insecure window in order to perform his work and it was not an instrumentality connected with the performance of his duty. Timmons v. R. R. Co., 6 OS. 105.

Judgment affirmed.

(Levine, PJ., concurs.)

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

SULLIVAN, J.

The question to be determined in this action, instituted in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas by Frank Kucera against William Grigsby, is whether the court committed prejudicial error in sustaining a motion to direct a verdict for Grigsby at the close of Kucera’s case on the ground that there was no1 duty owing by Grigs-by, the owner, to Kucera, who was an employee of an independent contractor and engaged as a tinner in the repair or construction of a gutter which was insecurely fastened until the carpenter should permanently fasten the same as a component part of the building.

The Court of Appeals held:

1.An owner of real estate is not only liable to an independent contractor, but to employees of such contractor at work upon the premises; and he is held liable for the exercise of ordinary case to all persons using his property in a proper way.

2. The injury in this case resulted from an unusual if not unnecessary use of Grigsby’s property, namely: the using of the insecure window frame by Kucera instead of a ladder.

3. The real question is whether the owner is liable for injuries resulting to an employee where the proximate cause of the injury is the result of using the owner’s property in such a manner as does violence to its purpose, use and intention.

4. The exercise of ordinary care is the exercise of reasonable care; and to impose the responsibility upon the owner of being responsible for injuries resulting from unexpected uses of his property and contrary to its purpose and design, would be without the domain of reasonableness.

5. There was no need of Kucera to call into use the insecure window in order to perform his work and it was not an instrumentality connected with the performance of his duty. Timmons v. R. R. Co., 6 OS. 105.

Judgment affirmed.

(Levine, PJ., concurs.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 N.E. 249, 24 Ohio App. 457, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 164, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kucera-v-grigsby-ohioctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack