Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Michael F. Cosgrove, at the City of Cleveland’s law department, reports that Ohio appellate courts are wrestling with some burning interpretive issues. In Pupco Property Management v. City of Cincinnati, 170 Ohio App. 3d 641, 868 N.E.2d 738 (Hamilton County Ct. App. 2007), the concurring opinion is particularly insightful, round about paragraph 19:
"The question is this: Is someone drinking a beer on a deck covered by a roof (the awning) with only one side wall (the building) indoors or outdoors? The simplest resolution might be that, since there is no door at all, it would be impossible to be outdoors. But that would raise the question of whether installing a free-standing door would suffice. I fear not. Surely you have to go out a door somewhere to get to this deck -- so does that make it outdoors? Maybe the problem is that you don't go in a door, so you can't be indoors on the deck."