Beddow v. Norton Fireman's Association

1 Citing case

  1. Marshall v. City of Columbus

    Case No. 2:05-cv-484 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2007)

    Plaintiffs concede that if they were proceeding under a theory of absolute nuisance, which imposes strict liability, the absence of an affirmative act on the part of Defendants would foreclose recovery. See Beddow v. Norton Fireman's Ass'n, Inc., C.A. No. 18373, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1783, at *5 (Ohio Ct.App. April 29, 1998) (holding that absolute nuisance requires that the tortfeasor commit an affirmative act; "[a]bsolute liability does not attach where a defendant has merely failed to abate a condition which he or she has not created."). Plaintiffs contend, however, that they are proceeding under a theory of qualified nuisance, which depends on proof of negligence and can be based either on an affirmative act or a failure to act.