Smith v. United Properties, Inc.

31 Ohio Law Rep. 102
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJune 23, 1965
Docket38780; 38781
StatusPublished

This text of 31 Ohio Law Rep. 102 (Smith v. United Properties, Inc.) 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
Smith v. United Properties, Inc., 31 Ohio Law Rep. 102 (Ohio 1965).

Opinion

Herbert, J.

1. Patrons and prospective customers upon the premises of a shopping center are invitees and the shopping center owner owes such invitees the common-law duty to exercise ordinary care for their safety.

[103]*1032. The common-law duty of the owner of a shopping center to exercise ordinary care for the safety of its invitees is that degree of care which an ordinary reasonable and prudent person exercises, or is accustomed to exercise, under the same or similar circumstances.

3. All the attendant circumstances must be considered in order to determine whether a sidewalk in a shopping center is reasonably safe for the use of invitees and such determination does not depend solely upon the matter of variation in the height of adjacent blocks in such sidewalk.

Judgments affirmed.

Corrigan, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur. Taft, C. J., Matthias and O’Neill, JJ., dissent. Corrigan, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for Zimmerman, J.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Ohio Law Rep. 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-united-properties-inc-ohio-1965.