Moloney v. City of Columbus

Ohio Supreme Court

Moloney v. City of Columbus

31 Ohio Law Rep. 85

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 9, 1965

Docket39038 and 39039

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Ohio Law Rep. 85 (Moloney v. City of Columbus) 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

Moloney v. City of Columbus, 31 Ohio Law Rep. 85 (Ohio 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Herbert, Judge.

A municipality which voluntarily owns and operates a zoological park primarily for fhe benefit and accommodation of those of its citizens who might be interested does so in the exercise of a proprietary function and is answerable for its tortious conduct. (Paragraph one of the syllabus of Crisafi v. City of Cleveland, 169 OhioSt. 137, 8 O.O. (2d) 125, distinguished. )

Judgments affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Herbert, Judge.

A municipality which voluntarily owns and operates a zoological park primarily for fhe benefit and accommodation of those of its citizens who might be interested does so in the exercise of a proprietary function and is answerable for its tortious conduct. (Paragraph one of the syllabus of Crisafi v. City of Cleveland, 169 OhioSt. 137, 8 O.O. (2d) 125, distinguished. )

Judgments affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Ohio Law Rep. 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moloney-v-city-of-columbus-ohio-1965.