 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bope v. A.W. Chesterton Co.10/13/2005
erm-Cleveland, Inc. (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 54. The duty element of a negligence claim and the reliance element of a fraud claim share a common characteristic as pertaining to the instant case. In order to prove duty and/or reliance, appellants must demonstrate a relationship between themselves and appellees. This relationship may lead to a duty in a negligence claim and it may lead to reliance in a fraud claim. However, absent this relationship, there is no duty on behalf of appellees to refrain from acting negligently toward appellants. In addition, absent this relationship, it is legally impossible for appellants to justifiably rely on appellees' representations or concealments.
{ } Appellants' claims, whether cloaked as negligence or fraud, have one gaping hole in that they establish no connection whatsoever between appellants and appellees. Accordingly, for the same reasons outlined in Bugg, we hold that appellants can prove no set of facts to support their claims that would entitle them to relief. The trial court did not err in granting appellees' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and appellants' sole assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover of appellants costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR. JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCURS; COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, P.J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
|