Jones v. Youngstown Municipal Ry. Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMyers, J.
The question is whether defendant, a common carrier, under the circumstances was required to exercise only ordinary care or the highest degree of practicable care for the safety of plaintiff, a passenger on one of its buss'es. The trial court held that defendant was required to exercise the highest degree of practicable care, and this ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
It is generally recognized that a common carrier is required to exercise more than ordinary care for the safety of its passengers. Once the passenger enters' a conveyance he relies upon the care exercised by the owner…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. PillsburyIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
- Galena & Chicago Union Railroad v. YarwoodIllinois Supreme Court · 1856
- Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. BoboCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy-Berwick, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1967
- Martin v. Central Ohio Transit AuthorityOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
- Dietrich v. Community Traction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1964
- Coleman v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit AuthorityOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
- Faxon Hills Construction Co. v. United Brotherhood of CarpentersOhio Supreme Court · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.