Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
A deck attached to a condominium owned by D collapsed during a party held by one of D's tenants. P was injured as a result of the collapse and sued under negligence. After the incident, an engineering firm hired by the city concluded that the deck's collapse resulted from improper construction and design in violation of the Ohio Basic Building Code (the 'OBBC'). Before the deck was built, Zink owned and was developing the property where the condominium was located as a series of condominiums. After Zink submitted plans to the City, Zink decided to modify the units to include decks. Documents were given to the City for review, and the City rejected these plans because they violated the OBBC and contained insufficient information. City made no further inspection of the decks during construction nor received from Zink any modified plans or other documents sufficient for it to proceed with approval. The City nevertheless issued Zink a Certificate of Occupancy. D purchased from Zink. D had no knowledge, either actual or constructive, as to any defect in the deck that was attached to the condominium. D was in no way involved in the discussions concerning the deck between the City, the general contractor, or the subcontractors, and that he lacked any privity of contract with these entities. P included D in the suit claiming violation of statute. The trial court granted summary judgment for D and P appealed. The appeals court reversed (notice of the defect to D was irrelevant and was not a defense) and D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co