Legal Opinion

Sabo v. Helsel

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 23, 1983No. 82-422PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. Hamden Lodge No. 517 v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Kormos v. Cleveland Retail Credit Men's Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Gumley, Admr. v. CowmanOhio Supreme Court · 1934
  4. State ex rel. Ryland v. SchinkalOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Clevenger v. HulingOhio Supreme Court · 1965

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Ziegler v. Wendel Poultry Services, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Junge v. BrothersOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Hale v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018
  5. Pursley v. Estate of MessmanOhio Court of Appeals · 2020

3 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