Universal Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bassett
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtStephenson, J.
It is becoming ultra-fasbionable in Ohio in personal injury cases to allege that tbe acts or omissions that proximately caused tbe injuries complained of were wanton.
Tbe term “wilful” is seldom used alone, but quite often tbe acts or omissions are characterized as both wilful and wanton. We have no degrees of negligence in Ohio. We define negligence as tbe failure to exercise ordinary care, and we can properly denominate such negligence as ordinary negligence. In some jurisdictions it is referred to as “simple” negligence, in others “mere” negligence. There is “method in the madness” that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bordonaro v. SenkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Skinner v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1933
- Tresise v. AshdownOhio Supreme Court · 1928
- Gumley, Admr. v. CowmanOhio Supreme Court · 1934
- Reserve Trucking Co. v. FairchildOhio Supreme Court · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by101 opinions
- Anderson v. City of MassillonOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Hawkins v. IvyOhio Supreme Court · 1977
- Tighe v. DiamondOhio Supreme Court · 1948
- Roszman v. SammettOhio Supreme Court · 1971
- Masters v. New York Central Rd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1947
96 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.