Case Name: McKINLEY v. NIDERST
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1927-09-19
Citations: 5 Ohio Law Abs. 783
Docket Number: No. 7630
Parties: McKINLEY v. NIDERST
Judges: (Sullivan, PJ., and Vickery, J., concur.)
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 5
Pages: 783–783

Head Matter:
McKINLEY v. NIDERST
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
No. 7630.
Decided Sept. 19, 1927.
McConnell, Blackmore & Cory, Cleveland, for McKinley.
Paul Howland, Cleveland, for Niderst.

Opinion:
OPINION OF COURT.
The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.
LEVINE, J.
At the commencement of the trial the defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence, on the ground that the petition fails to set forth a cause of action, which the trial court overruled. We have examined the petition in this case, and, while there are other allegations of negligence, it must he conceded that the only ground relied on is the failure of defendant to keep the hallways lighted.
Negligence is a breach of duty owing from one person to another. At common law the landlord was under no duty to keep the hallways lighted. Such duty, if it exists, must arise either by virtue of the General Code or a City Ordinance, none of which exist in the case at bar. Such duty may also arise by virtue of a contract between the parties, either express or implied. The petition pleads no such agreement between the parties.
It follows, therefore, in the absence of any duty resting upon the landlord, either by virtue of law or by virtue of contract, to keep the hallways lighted, he cannot he charged with negligence. The action of the trial court in sustaining the motion for a directed verdict, if it has no other justification, rests secuiely upon the ground that the petition does not state a cause of action.
(Sullivan, PJ., and Vickery, J., concur.)