Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. v. Bartsch
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By ROSS, J.
This theory and charge ignores completely the fact that .the Street Railway Company owned and operated the street' car. It is perfectly obvious that any vehicle could be allowed to make so much noise that the operator thereof could not hear sounds which he should hear in order to free himself from a charge of negligence.
The jury evidently found that an ordinarily prudent person, in spite' of the claimed obstruction to vision and the noise of the street car, should have become aware of the approach of the patrol in time to avoid the collision therewith; and a reading of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. MoonOhio Supreme Court · 1931
3Cited by2 opinions
- Theresa Kesmarki and Thomas Kesmarki v. Ruth Elizabeth KislingCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
- Boenke v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1936