Legal Opinion

Skinner v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1933No. 23837PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.

It is not disputed that Miss Hohler was acting as Skinner’s agent and that any negligence of hers proximately contributing to produce his injuries would prevent his recovery. Therefore the one important question presented is whether the record shows such negligence as a matter of law.

On July 21, 1929, Section 12603, General Code, became effective as amended by the addition of the following words: “No person shall drive any motor vehicle in and upon any public road or highway at a greater speed than will permit him to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.”

No reported Ohio…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schell v. DuBoisOhio Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Heidle v. BaldwinOhio Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Bowmaster v. William H. DePree Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1930
  4. George Ast Candy Co. v. KlingOhio Supreme Court · 1929

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Universal Concrete Pipe Co. v. BassettOhio Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Matz v. J. L. Curtis Cartage Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Smiley v. Arrow Spring Bed Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Kormos v. Cleveland Retail Credit Men's Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Pond v. LesleinOhio Supreme Court · 1995

45 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