that an injury was likely to result from a particular act, the court could find that the duty element of negligence is satisfied.” Wallace, 773 N.E.2d at 1025. Generally, the duty of due care “is that degree of care which an ordinarily reasonable and prudent person exercises, or is accustomed to exercising, under the same or similar circumstances.” Mussivand, 544 N.E.2d at 270. Negligence actions can be based on either “acts of omission or acts of commission;” an act of omission involves the “failure to do an act that a person is under a duty to do and that a person of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances, or the failure to take action to protect another from harm.” Asad v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 328 F.Supp.2d 772, 782 (N.D.Ohio 2004) (<HOLDING>). Ohio law generally does not require that a
holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence  that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions     and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise holding that question of whether defendant breached duty under applicable safety statutes was not one for experts holding that the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant and denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant breached its duty to act in good faith holding that the rule bars subcontractors negligence claim because no independent duty was breached holding that the issue of whether or not a defendant airline breached its duty of due care by failing to transfer a pregnant employee from a flight precluded summary judgment for the defendant on plaintiffs negligence claim