finding that violation of R.C. 5321.04(A) could be negligence per se where the plaintiff suffered an injury during a deck collapse that was caused by violation of the building code’s design and construction provisions
How later courts described this case
- finding that violation of R.C. 5321.04(A) could be negligence per se where the plaintiff suffered an injury during a deck collapse that was caused by violation of the building code’s design and construction provisions
- stating that negligence per se exists when there is violation of a statutory section that provides a positive and definite standard of care
- reasoning that "[t]he language of the statute is `fixed and absolute, the same under all circumstances and is imposed upon' all landlords."
- "negligence per se and strict liability differ in that a negligence per se statutory violation may be `excused'"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Alice Robie Resnick, J.,
concurring. I write separately simply to make it crystal clear that the law would never require a landlord to be an insurer of the safety of others. In this case, it is agreed that the landlord had no knowledge of the latent defect, and it is basic hornbook law that in the absence of actual or constructive knowledge, a landlord is not liable.