Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chicago & Calumet District Transit Co. v. Vidinghoff

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided February 7, 1952No. 18,197Published

1DissentAchor, J.

The statement in the majority opinion of the court as to the pleadings and physical facts surrounding the place of the accident is correct. However, I do not concur with the majority opinion as to the evidence regarding the conduct of the parties, nor the legal consequences of their conduct.

All the acts of negligence charged in plaintiff’s complaint must, of necessity, be predicated upon a fact that appellant’s bus driver saw, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have seen, the appellee in sufficient time to have (1) sounded his horn, or (2) stopped the bus and thus avoided the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Larkins v. KohlmeyerIndiana Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Continental Casualty Co. v. LloydIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Pfisterer v. KeyIndiana Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Koplovitz v. JensenIndiana Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Cousins v. GlassburnIndiana Supreme Court · 1940

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API