Highway Construction Co. v. Sorna
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
This record presents a single question: Was the plaintiff, Anna Sorna, guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, which should prevent her from recovery in this case?
The claims of the respective parties may be thus stated: The construction company contends that a pedestrian may not attempt to pass over a defective condition in a city street in broad daylight when the condition is plainly visible, and of which condition the pedestrian has previously had full knowledge, and then, if injured while attempting to pass over such defective condition, recover damages, when there is another…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mosheuvel v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Moore v. HuntingtonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1888
- March v. Phœnixville BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Missouri & Kansas Telephone Co. v. VandervortSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
- Nicholson v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Davis v. Charles Shutrump & Sons Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1942
- Winkler v. City of ColumbusOhio Supreme Court · 1948
- Moore v. GeigerOhio Court of Appeals · 1966
- Straley v. KeltnerOhio Court of Appeals · 1959
- Brosnan v. Heinen's, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.