Legal Opinion

Newburgh Heights (Vil.) v. Vanek

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 29, 1928No. 8903Published

1Opinion of the CourtJustice, J.

Counsel for plaintiff in error contends that the testimony of Vanek establishes negligence on his part directly and proximately contributing to the production of the injuries complained of. With this contention we are in accord.

Section 6310-1 General Code, so far as pertinent here, provides:

(Here follows quotation from this, section.)

This statute is mandatory and a violation thereof is negligence per se.

In the instant case, plaintiff testified that the lights of his automobile at the time of the accident, threw their rays about three feet in front of his machine. Obviously he was not only…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Biles v. WebbOhio Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Buddenberg v. KavanaghOhio Court of Appeals · 1923
  3. State Ex Rel. Cox v. PayneOhio Supreme Court · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API