Featherstone v. Cleve. Ry. Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
VICKERY, J
Apparently the theory of the court below was that, in as much as the driver, in order to save a person on the street, applied the brakes thus suddenly, he was guilty of no negligence and, therfore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. There is one thing, however, that the court left out of his consideration, and that was the speed of the bus. Now it must be remembered that from Ninth Street to a point at the Williamson Building is one of the busiest parts of the busy City of Cleveland. The streets are constantly being .crossed by pedestrians and vehicles of all kinds are…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Karsey v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Stine v. Springfield City Lines, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1958
- Hopkins v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026