Brinkman v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 180 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 187 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Rannals v. Diamond Jo Casino (2001), 148 Ohio App. 3d 494 - Blatnik v. Avery Dennison Corp. (2002)
4 federal appellate · 180 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Sidle v. Humphrey · Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy-Berwick, Inc. · Lopatkovich v. City of Tiffin
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 187 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“everyone is assumed to appreciate the risks associated with natural accumulations of ice and snow and, therefore, everyone is responsible to protect himself or herself against the inherent risks presented by natural accumulations of ice and snow.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * homeowners had no common-law duty to remove or make less hazardous natural accumulation of ice and snow, or to warn guests of inherent dangers presented by natural accumulations of snow and ice.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“Living in Ohio during the winter has its inherent dangers. Recognizing this, we have previously rejected the notion that a landowner owes a duty to the general public to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from public sidewalks which abut the landowner's premises, even where a city ordinance requires the landowner to keep the sidewalks free of ice and snow. * * * It is unfortunate that Carol Brinkman slipped and fell on appellants' sidewalk. Perhaps appellants should have shoveled and salted the sidewalk as a matter of courtesy to their guests. However, we find that Ohio law imposed no such obligation upon appellants, and we are unwilling to extend homeowner liability to cover slip-and-fall occurrences caused entirely by natural accumulations of ice and snow. To hold otherwise would subject Ohio homeowners to the perpetual threat of (seasonal) civil liability any time a visitor sets foot on the premises, whether the visitor is a friend, a door-to-door salesman or politician, or even the local `welcome wagon.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.