Holbrock v. Hamilton Distributing, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHbRbeet, J.
In fashioning a rule of law to be applied in cases where it is claimed that a child under seven years of age was contributorily negligent, we are presented with three choices. The first is that a child under seven years of age is conclusively presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence. E. g., Walston, Admr., v. Greene (1958), 247 N. C. 693, 102 S. E. 2d 124. The second is that a child under seven years of age is presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence but that such presumption is rebuttable. E. g., Bush v. New Jersey & New York Transit Co., Inc. (1959), 30 N. J. 345, 153…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- The Steamboat Clipper v. LoganOhio Supreme Court · 1849
- Bush v. New Jersey & New York Transit Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
- Walston v. GreeneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- Gottesman v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Tyler v. WeedMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Davis v. Department of LicensingWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Smith v. FlesherOhio Supreme Court · 1967
- Drayton Ex Rel. Drayton v. Jiffee Chemical Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1975
- Hunter v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- Quillian v. MathewsNevada Supreme Court · 1970
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.