Legal Opinion · Dissent
Arrasmith v. Pennsylvania Rd.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided May 16, 1969No. 18612Published
1DissentWeigk, Chief Judge
In my view the majority has not correctly applied the well-settled law of Ohio, and I respectfully dissent.
The rule denying recovery in a case like the present one was clearly established by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Capelle v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. (1940), 136 Ohio St. 203. The court held:
“In general, a person who drives, or is driven, into the side of a railroad train standing or moving over a grade crossing cannot, in the absence of special circumstances rendering the crossing peculiarly hazardous, recover from the railroad company for injuries received thereby.” (Italics mine) (Syl. 2)
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Arthur Wilcox, Leslie Grier, George Porter, Abe Smith, Russell Waters and Otis Drummond v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. And Harry CulyerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1967
- Capelle v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1940
- Peters v. B. & F. Transfer Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1966
- Gigliotti v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Rd.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1958
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.