Legal Opinion
Matkovich v. Penn Central Transportation Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 17, 1982No. 81-358PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, C. J.
In this case, the jury found that Penn Central and Jennings were guilty of wanton misconduct. However, the Court of Appeals reversed. Therefore, we must determine whether the jury could have reasonably concluded, based on the evidence, that wanton misconduct existed. We *212will consider the conduct of appellees separately — first Penn Central, then Jennings.
The test for determining wanton misconduct was defined in Hawkins v. Ivy (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 114. As stated by the Court of Appeals in the instant case, Hawkins created a two-part test for wanton misconduct. First, there is a failure to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hawkins v. IvyOhio Supreme Court · 1977
- Capelle v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1940
- Reed v. Erie Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938
- Pisel v. ITT Continental Baking Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1980
- McCallie v. New York Central Rd. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1969
3Cited by56 opinions
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Joshua Nye and Judy Ramirez v. Csx Transportation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- Tomlinson v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Brockman v. BellOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
- Linley v. DemossOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.