The only question considered by the supreme court was "whether a child under the age of seven is liable for primary negligence or for an intentional tort." The court noted the general incapacity of a child of this age to act with reason and foresight, and further expressed its own reluctance to attach blame to a child "in any sense comparable to the blame attachable to an adult." For these reasons it held that such a child shall be conclusively presumed incapable of both primary negligence and intentional tort.

In so holding, Ohio joins a distinct minority of states which follow this view. Previous case authority governing a young child's primary liability in Ohio was less than conclusive, yet the sparse number of decisions indicative of Ohio's stance espoused a view contrary to that now adopted. It had been stated by way of dictum that "an infant is responsible for his own torts ...," and that the question of whether a six-year-old child is capable of a negligent act is for the jury. More recently, the court of appeals, although dealing with the liability of children 13 and 14 years of age, held that a minor who commits a tort is liable at any age. The Ohio Supreme Court, although reversing the decision on other grounds, affirmed the correctness of the lower court's statement of the law.