Moloney v. City of Columbus
Moloney v. City of Columbus
31 Ohio Law Rep. 85
Moloney v. City of Columbus
Opinion of the Court
A municipality which voluntarily owns and operates a zoological park primarily for fhe benefit and accommodation of those of its citizens who might be interested does so in the exercise of a proprietary function and is answerable for its tortious conduct. (Paragraph one of the syllabus of Crisafi v. City of Cleveland, 169 OhioSt. 137, 8 O.O. (2d) 125, distinguished. )
Judgments affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.