# Holman v. Licking County

> Ohio Court of Appeals · October 6, 1995 · 107 Ohio App. 3d 106

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3760216

## Case

- **Full name:** HOLMAN, a Minor, Et Al., Appellants, v. LICKING COUNTY, Appellee, Et Al.
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 6, 1995
- **Citations:** 107 Ohio App. 3d 106; 667 N.E.2d 1239
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hoffman
- **Judges:** Wise, Reader, Hoffman
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3760216

## Opinion text

*114
William B. Hoffman, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part.
I concur in the majority’s opinion as to its analysis and disposition of appellants’ first, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error.
I further concur in the analysis and disposition reached by the majority concerning the appellants’ second assignment of error, which holds that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury regarding R.C. 5579.04, as requested. Appellants’ proposed jury instruction sought to establish liability on the part of the appellee for breach of its duty under R.C. 5579.04 as an independent basis for liability. The majority correctly concludes such an instruction would be improper based on R.C. 2744.02(B)(5). I write separately only to note that I believe it would be proper to instruct the jury that if it found that the appellee breached its duty under R.C. 5579.04, that breach may be considered as evidence in determining whether the appellee breached its specific duty under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3760216. Public record. Not legal advice.