Legal Opinion

Roszman v. Sammett

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1971No. 70-161PublishedCited by 70 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteen, J.

The record presents this question for determination :

Do the facts and circumstances as disclosed by the *96record show a wanton act on the part of the defendant which precludes the defendant from urging the negligence of plaintiff’s decedent as a defense to this action?

The basis for plaintiff’s claim, as set forth in her petition and evidence adduced in her behalf, is that the proximate cause of her decedent’s death is the wanton misconduct of the defendant. If the evidence supports plaintiff’s position, then the defendant’s assertion that the decedent was contributorily negligent as a matter of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Schell v. DuBoisOhio Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Universal Concrete Pipe Co. v. BassettOhio Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Claypool v. Mohawk Motor, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1951

3Cited by70 opinions

  1. Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Anderson v. City of MassillonOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Hawkins v. IvyOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Cook v. City of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. Rankin v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family ServicesOhio Supreme Court · 2008

65 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