Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Street Ry. Co. v. Mueller

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided September 16, 1935PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Poehl v. Cin. Traction Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1925
  2. Cleveland Ry. Co. v. ArrisonOhio Court of Appeals · 1926

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. O'Shea v. Chicago Motor Coach Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API