Legal Opinion

Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. v. Bartsch

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 14, 1935No. 4683PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. State v. MoonOhio Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Theresa Kesmarki and Thomas Kesmarki v. Ruth Elizabeth KislingCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
  2. Boenke v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API