Case Name: CLEVELAND (City) v. FERRANDO
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925-03-18
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 296
Docket Number: No. 19028
Parties: CLEVELAND (City) v. FERRANDO
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 296–296

Head Matter:
No. 459
CLEVELAND (City) v. FERRANDO
No. 19028.
Supreme Court
On motion to certify. Dock.
March 18, 1925;
3 Abs. 198.
972. PUBLIC PARKS—Duty of city as fireworks display in—Is operation of a governmental function?
Note:'—A case similar to this will be found in Youngstown v. Wilkoff, 1 Abs. 673.
' Attorneys—Carl F. Shuler and J. F. Smith, for State; Nicola & Horn, for Ferrando; all of Cleveland.

Opinion:
Amedeo Ferrando, a minor, together with a companion, was walking through Ambler Park in the City of Cleveland, when they came upon, and picked up, an unexploded bomb, which remained from a fireworks display which had been given in said park the previous evening by an Italian Society, under a permit granted by the City of Cleveland.
The petition alleges negligence by way of improper supervision of the display of fireworks; negligence in inspecting and cleaning up the Park after the display of fireworks, and the maintenance of a nuisance in violation of a statutory duty of the City to keep its public grounds free from nuisance.
A demurrer was filed to the petition, which was sustained by the Common Pleas Court. The Court of Appeals of the First District sitting by assignment in Cuyahoga County, reversed and remanded the case with instructions to.overrule the demurrer.
The questions involved are: 1. Whether or not there is a proper joinder of parties defendant: 2. The duties of the city with respect to permitting and supervising a fireworks display; 3, and whether or not a city, in the operation of a park is engaged in a governmental function.
The status of the case is somewhat indefinite, inasmuch as it is not definitely known on which of the grounds or for what reasons the trial court sustained the demurrer, no memorandum or opinion being given by it at that time. The Court of Appeals apparnetly as--sumed that it was sustained on the grounds of a governmental function, and decided the case on that basis.