# Hargrove v. Tanner

> Ohio Court of Appeals · June 6, 1990 · 66 Ohio App. 3d 693

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3771841

## Case

- **Full name:** HARGROVE Et Al., Appellants, v. TANNER, Appellee
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 6, 1990
- **Citations:** 66 Ohio App. 3d 693; 586 N.E.2d 141; 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 2281
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Baird
- **Judges:** Cacioppo, Cirigliano, Baird
- **Cited by:** 111 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/3771841

## Opinion text

Baird, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Though the evidence would support a finding of simple negligence, it would not support a finding of any greater degree of culpability on the part of the defendant. Since there would be no liability to a trespasser for simple negligence, it becomes important to determine whether Natasha was a trespasser. There was evidence in the case that she had been on the public sidewalk just before she was hit, and there was evidence that she was subsequently found partly on the sidewalk and partly in the driveway.
In a discussion between the trial judge and counsel, the following exchange took place:
“THE COURT: You keep saying she was on the sidewalk. I suppose that’s very disputed.
“MR. ZURZ: That’s disputed. Sure. That’s up for the jury to decide that, where she was.”
Having acknowledged that the matter was disputed, it was incumbent on the court to submit the matter to the jury. I would reverse.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3771841. Public record. Not legal advice.