Milbert v. Wells Twp. Haunted House, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Fernandez v. Walmart Supercenter #3860

    2022 Ohio 1304 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    {¶20} When negligence is alleged in the context of premises liability, the applicable duty is defined by the relationship between the landowner and the plaintiff, such as invitee, licensee, or trespasser. Milbert v. Wells Twp. Haunted House, Inc., 2016-Ohio-5643, 70 N.E.3d 1143, (7th Dist.), ¶ 26, citing Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120, 2009-Ohio-2495, 909 N.E.2d 120, ¶ 10. Here, the parties agree that Appellant was a business invitee.

  2. Alcus v. Bainbridge Twp.

    2020 Ohio 543 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

    This is consistent with the views of other courts. See, e.g. , Plank v. Bellefontaine , 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-17-18, 2017-Ohio-8623, 2017 WL 5565181, ¶20 (holding that the applicable "function" was that for which the plaintiff "seeks to hold the political subdivision liable"); Hignett v. Schwarz , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 10CA009762, 2011-Ohio-3252, 2011 WL 2571841, ¶18 (holding that the relevant "activity" was the one being "engaged in at the time [plaintiff] was injured"); Milbert v. Wells Twp. Haunted House, Inc. , 7th Dist. Jefferson, 2016-Ohio-5643, 70 N.E.3d 1143, ¶24 ("[T]he question of whether the township was entitled to immunity depends upon whether an employee negligently performed an act that caused the plaintiff's injury"). {¶75} The evidence in this case establishes that the negligent method Mr. Bularz utilized to park the backhoe caused injury to Mr. Alcus and damage to his vehicle.

  3. Davis v. Dungeons of Delhi

    2019 Ohio 1457 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Mock, P.J., and Zayas, J., concur. Milbert v. Wells Twp. Haunted House, Inc., 2016-Ohio-5643, 70 N.E.3d 1143 (7th Dist.), cited by the plaintiffs, does not support their position that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk should not apply to bar recovery for persons injured in haunted house attractions. In Milbert , the political subdivision that operated the attraction did not assert that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury where the failure of a loose bolt caused the "lid" of a coffin ride to open prematurely and eject the plaintiff.