Brinkmoeller v. Wilson
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCoRbigaN, J.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
In reaching our. decision we do not hold, and have no intention of implying, that the duty of a taxicab driver to an intoxicated passenger includes acting as a nurse, guards ian, attendant or groom to such passenger. .Bather, the' thrust of our holding is that defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, made after counsel for .plaintiffs’ opening statement in this case, should have been overruled, based upon the totality of facts asserted in the opening statement plus the admissions in defendant’s answer, and plaintiffs permitted to present…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fagan v. . Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Baier v. Cleveland Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1937
3Cited by57 opinions
- Stone v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Mitchell v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
- McCabe/Marra Co. v. City of DoverOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- Crawford v. HalkovicsOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Reeves v. HealyOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.