Case Title: Barnhill v. Hamilton

Citation: 2003-Ohio-5029

Docket Number: 20021575

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Barnhill v. Hamilton, 100 Ohio St.3d 66, 2003-Ohio-5029.] 
1 
 
 
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. 
__________________