Cincinnati Street Ry. Co. v. Mueller
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By ROSS, PJ.
If, under the facts stated, the defendant through its employees failed to exercise the highest degree of care which a prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances, then the jury was justified in its conclusion adverse to the defendant.
The carrier owes a duty not only to exercise the highest degree of care for the safety of its passengers while on the vehicle, but also the highest degree of care in providing a safe place for such passengers to alight from the vehicle. In the case of Railway & Light Co. v Leedy, 104 Oh St, 487, the court in its opinion at page…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Poehl v. Cin. Traction Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1925
- Cleveland Ry. Co. v. ArrisonOhio Court of Appeals · 1926
3Cited by1 opinion
- O'Shea v. Chicago Motor Coach Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1946