Skip to content

TortsIntentional torts

Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals · Decided January 26, 1994

Full citation

Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Commc’ns, Inc., 634 N.E.2d 697 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (per curiam).

Quote pages are pages of 92 Ohio App. 3d 232, the official report, so quotes and pinpoints cite it; for 634 N.E.2d 697, find the page in that reporter.

VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.This brief explains the opinion as issued. Later treatment and current-law status are not assessed here.

Leichtman

antismoking advocateplaintiff-appellant

WLW Jacor Communications, Inc. et al.

radio station and talk-show hostsdefendants-appellees

The parties: Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc. et al..

Brief

Facts

Ahron Leichtman alleged in his complaint that he was a nationally known antismoking advocate. On the day of the Great American Smokeout, he was invited to appear on the Bill Cunningham radio talk show on WLW. The subject was the harmful effects of smoking and of breathing secondary smoke, meaning smoke from other people's smoking. Leichtman alleged that, while he was in the studio, Furman, another WLW talk-show host, lit a cigar and repeatedly blew smoke in his face. He alleged that Furman did this to cause him physical discomfort, humiliation and distress, and that Furman acted at Cunningham's urging. Leichtman acknowledged that he went into the studio willingly to make a public radio appearance with Cunningham, who was known for his blowtorch rhetoric. The complaint named WLW, Cunningham and Furman as defendants. It had three counts: invasion of privacy, battery (a harmful or offensive touching), and violation of Cincinnati Board of Health Regulation No. 00083, which makes it illegal to smoke in designated public places. The court took these allegations as true.

Issues

  1. Does a complaint alleging that a defendant intentionally blew cigar smoke in the plaintiff's face state a claim for battery, so that dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was error?
  2. Can the battery claim also go forward against the host who allegedly urged the act and against the radio station that employed the host who blew the smoke?
  3. Do the counts for invasion of privacy and for violation of the Cincinnati health regulation state claims on which relief can be granted?

Holding

Leichtman's allegation that Furman deliberately blew cigar smoke in his face states a claim for battery against Furman, and the allegations also suffice against Cunningham and WLW. The privacy count and the health-regulation count do not state claims, so the trial court rightly dismissed them.

The rest of this brief is for subscribers

Student, Pro and Firm include the procedural history, the rule and the reasoning, the IRAC and CREAC versions, every key quote with its pinpoint, the citation box with parallel citations and short forms and the exam angle.

Learn the citation form

Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.

The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/leichtman-v-wlw-jacor-communications-inc