Sabo v. Helsel
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The issue raised by this cause is whether the trial court, in directing a verdict against appellant, properly ruled that he was negligent as a matter of law. For the following reasons, we conclude that questions of fact should have been submitted to the jury and the motion for a directed verdict overruled.
The court of appeals implied that appellant violated the assured-clear-distance-ahead statute, R.C. 4511.21, and concluded that Woods, supra, controlled. R.C. 4511.21 provides in pertinent part:
“* * *pqj0 person shall drive any motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar in and upon any…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hamden Lodge No. 517 v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
- Kormos v. Cleveland Retail Credit Men's Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1936
- Gumley, Admr. v. CowmanOhio Supreme Court · 1934
- State ex rel. Ryland v. SchinkalOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- Clevenger v. HulingOhio Supreme Court · 1965
3Cited by8 opinions
- Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
- Ziegler v. Wendel Poultry Services, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
- Junge v. BrothersOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- Hale v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018
- Pursley v. Estate of MessmanOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.