MHLoppy , 5 hours ago (edited 5 hours ago)

Funny headline aside, semantics and trying to understand expected meanings of words and phrases is fucky and makes for an interesting case. Per the article the court decision was only 4-3 (i.e., close), and the dissent seemed -- as a person who admittedly is not well-versed in the language normally used by Ohio's Supreme Court -- to be pretty strongly opinionated.

From the snippets in the article I find it pretty easy to sympathize with both sides of the argument!

---

edit: the full text is available here (the original unarchived source is being hammered by curious people) - you can download the file to read it in full-res

The question seems to be: "did the restaurant exercise reasonable duty of care". There is a lot more to the case than the fun-but-sensationalized headline and even article.