Legal Opinion

Rothgery v. Seaton

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 13, 1933No. 664PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*189OPINION

2Per curiam

A very simple case was presented. If plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, he was entitled to recover against the defendant if the defendant’s negligence was a contributing proximate cause of said collision, even though the negligence of the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding was also,a contributing proximate cause of said collision. And if the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, the only defense to the action was that the collision was caused solely by the negligence of the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding.

That being the…

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Janosik v. SpangOhio Court of Appeals · 1934
  2. Behrens v. WarrickOhio Court of Appeals · 1940
  3. Heise v. WeikartOhio Court of Appeals · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API