# Commerce & Industry Insurance v. City of Toledo

> Ohio Supreme Court · August 23, 1989 · 45 Ohio St. 3d 96

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6761954

## Case

- **Full name:** Commerce & Industry Insurance Company v. City of Toledo, Appellants Able Warehouse & Distributing Company
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 23, 1989
- **Citations:** 45 Ohio St. 3d 96; 543 N.E.2d 1188; 1989 Ohio LEXIS 213
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Holmes
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Fourth, Grey, Holmes, Moyer, Snick, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 167 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/6761954

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that, in order to reverse on plain error, the record must show that but for the wrongful admission of testimony, the jury would have decided differently
- characterizing whether defendant breached his fiduciary duties as a question of fact

## Opinion text

Holmes, J.,
concurring. I am able to concur completely in the majority opinion, inclusive of the discussion of the potential liability of the city of Toledo, in that the latter was presented within the context of the trial court having granted a Civ. R. 12(B)(6) motion for dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Here, as the majority quite correctly points out, the mere pronouncement that a fire is under control does not constitute an assumption of a special duty to act on anyone’s behalf. However, as noted by the majority, when the facts tend to show that the fire department authorities made certain statements to owners or their agents that relaxed their continued vigilance to the owners’ detriment, there may be found to be a cause of action stated within these pleadings. In such an event, there may be proof that the fire department, and thus the city, went beyond its public duty. I concur.
Grey, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6761954. Public record. Not legal advice.