Barnhill v. Hamilton

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Barnhill v. Hamilton, 100 Ohio St.3d 66, 2003-Ohio-5029.] BARNHILL ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF HAMILTON, APPELLEE. [Cite as Barnhill v. Hamilton, 100 Ohio St.3d 66, 2003-Ohio-5029.] Torts Open-and-obvious doctrine remains viable in Ohio Court of appeals judgment affirmed on Proposition of Law No. I on authority of Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc. Proposition of Law No. II improvidently allowed. (No. 2002-1575 Submitted September 17, 2003 Decided October 8, 2003.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA2002-03-052. __________________ {¶1} The judgment of the court of appeals on Proposition of Law No. I is affirmed on the authority of Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088. {¶2} Proposition of Law No. II is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR and O DONNELL, JJ., concur. PFEIFER, J., dissents. __________________ O Connor, Acciari & Levy, L.L.C., Barry D. Levy and Michael D. Weisensel, for appellants. Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, L.L.P., Wilson G. Weisenfelder Jr. and Laura I. Munson, for appellee. __________________ 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.