Legal Opinion

Slicker v. Seccombe

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 22, 1931PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHERICK, PJ,

At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s opening statement, the defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings and opening statement. This motion the court overruled. Of this ruling the defendant now complains. The ground advanced for the sustaining of this motion was that the plaintiff could only recover upon averment and proof of a wilful and wanton tort on the part of the defendant. This motion was properly overruled, for the reason that the averment of the defendant’s answer, that the plaintiff’s wife was guilty of negligence per se in riding ' on the running board of the car,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bremer v. L. E. W. R. R. Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Hinkle v. Minneapolis, Anoka & Cayuna Range Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
  3. Union Gas & Electric Co. v. CrouchOhio Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Iaconio v. D'AngeloSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1928

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Central Transfer & Storage Co. v. FrostOhio Court of Appeals · 1935
  2. Hankey Baking Co. v. SheenOhio Court of Appeals · 1936
  3. Kalmon v. StumpfOhio Court of Appeals · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API