Sikora v. Wenzel

88 Ohio St. 3d 493 · Ohio Supreme Court · 2000

Facts

A landlord (Wenzel) was found liable for a defective deck under R.C. 5321.04(A)(1) by an appellate court, which applied strict liability despite Wenzel's lack of notice of the defect. The appellate court reasoned that notice was irrelevant in a negligence per se context. The City had issued approval documents without reinspection, and Wenzel had no reason to question the certification.

Issue

Does a landlord's lack of actual or constructive notice of a defective condition excuse liability for a violation of R.C. 5321.04(A)(1) or (A)(2), which constitutes negligence per se?

Holding

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that a landlord's lack of actual or constructive notice of a defective condition does excuse liability for a statutory violation constituting negligence per se. The court found Wenzel's violation excused because he neither knew nor should have known of the defect.

Rule

A violation of R.C. 5321.04(A)(1) or (A)(2) by a landlord constitutes negligence per se, but liability for such a violation is excused if the landlord neither knew nor should have known of the factual circumstances causing the violation. Negligence per se is not strict liability, and an unexcused violation is required for liability.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-01-08. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.