tort action against the county for injuries occurring during the renovation of a building owned by county and subleased by plaintiffs; supreme court held the defense of sovereign immunity was available to counties only under the same limited circumstances as it was available to municipalities
How later courts described this case
- tort action against the county for injuries occurring during the renovation of a building owned by county and subleased by plaintiffs; supreme court held the defense of sovereign immunity was available to counties only under the same limited circumstances as it was available to municipalities
- “Simply put, counties are, by this decision, subject to the same rules as private persons or corporations if a duty has been violated and a tort has been committed.”
- “In Ohio, a county is not regarded as a body corporate like a municipality but rather a political subdivision of the state.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Locher, J.,
dissenting. I agree with the dissent of Justice Holmes as it applies to the relationship between county governments and the state, and the reasoning therein. I also dissent for the reasons set forth in my opinions *208 in Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc. (1982), 2 Ohio St. 3d 26, 31 , and Strohofer v. Cincinnati (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 118, 124 .