## Facts

- A deck attached to a condominium collapsed during a tenant’s party, injuring guest Aaron Sikora.
- Post-collapse engineering analysis attributed the failure to improper design and construction that violated the Ohio Basic Building Code (OBBC).
- The prior owner/developer added decks after initial plan submission; the municipality rejected the deck plans for OBBC violations and insufficient information.
- The municipality issued a certificate of occupancy despite rejecting the deck plans and without further deck inspection or approved revised plans.
- Tom Wenzel later purchased the condominium and became the landlord.
- It was undisputed that Wenzel neither knew nor should have known of the deck defect, was not involved in plan discussions or construction, and lacked contractual privity with the contractors or designers.
- Sikora sued Wenzel and others, alleging negligence and asserting landlord liability based in part on R.C. 5321.04(A)(1)’s duty to comply with applicable building and safety codes.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord’s violation of R.C. 5321.04(A)(1) or R.C. 5321.04(A)(2) constitutes negligence per se.
2. Whether a landlord is excused from liability for such a violation if the landlord neither knew nor should have known of the factual circumstances causing the violation (i.e., lacked actual or constructive notice).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that violations of R.C. 5321.04(A)(1) and (A)(2) constitute negligence per se.
- The Court further held that a landlord is excused from liability under either subsection if the landlord neither knew nor should have known of the factual circumstances that caused the violation.
- The Court rejected the view that a statutory violation under R.C. 5321.04 imposes strict liability without regard to notice.
- The Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated judgment for Wenzel because the record showed he lacked actual or constructive notice of the defect.

## Legal Principles

- R.C. 5321.04(A)(1) (code compliance) and R.C. 5321.04(A)(2) (repairs) supply statutory duties whose violation constitutes negligence per se.
- Negligence per se is distinct from strict liability; a statutory breach establishes breach of duty but does not eliminate defenses or other tort elements.
- In landlord tort claims based on R.C. 5321.04(A)(1) or (A)(2), lack of actual or constructive notice of the defective condition is a legal excuse that can defeat liability.
- The notice requirement recognized for repair duties under R.C. 5321.04(A)(2) also applies to code-compliance duties under R.C. 5321.04(A)(1).

## Conclusion

The court held that landlord violations of Ohio’s statutory duties to comply with codes and make repairs are negligence per se, but a landlord is not liable when the landlord neither knew nor should have known of the defect that caused the violation; because Wenzel lacked actual or constructive notice of the deck’s defective condition, he was excused from liability.


Sikora v. Wenzel, 88 Ohio St. 3d 493, 727 N.E.2d 1277 (Ohio 2000)