Case ID: ohio-st-3d_43/html/0175-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marriott Corporation, Appellee, v. Hayward Baker Company et al., Appellants.
    [Cite as Marriott Corp. v. Hayward Baker Co. (1989), 43 Ohio St. 3d 175.]
    (No. 88-924
    Submitted April 4, 1989
    Decided June 14, 1989.)
    
      Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Russell P. Herrold, Jr., and Carl D. Smallwood, for appellee.
    
      Frutig, Polito & Travis Co., L.P.A., Thomas R. Frutig and Dennis P. Zapka, for appellant Hayward Baker Company.
    
      Bieser, Greer & Landis, David C. Greer and Geoffrey P. Walker, for appellant Carlisle Construction Company. _
    _ Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling and William L. Havemann, for appellant Koehring Company.
   On authority of Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. Straley (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 372, 533 N.E. 2d 764, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to all defendants is reinstated. The appellate decision is reversed as to Koehring Company and Carlisle Construction Company, and is reversed on the tort issue as to Hayward Baker Company. That portion of the appellate court’s judgment involving a contract issue between Marriott Corporation and Hayward Baker Company is affirmed, and the question involving a contract issue is remanded to the trial court for further consideration in light of Straley.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Holmes and Wright, JJ., dissent.