Baier v. Cleveland Ry. Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.
To establish actionable negligence it is fundamental that the one seeking recovery must show the existence of a duty on the part of the one sued not to subject the former to the injury complained of, a failure to obsérve such duty, and an injury resulting proximately therefrom.
In accordance with the decided weight of authority, this court is committed to the proposition that a street railway company owes no duty to a passenger to warn him, upon leaving a street car at a regular ■ stop, of the approach of an automobile, and its failure to do so will not render the company liable for injuries…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Wood v. North Carolina Public-Service Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Chesley v. Waterloo, Cedar Falls & Northern RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
- Ruddy v. IngebretSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Jacobson v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1922
- Hammett v. Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1918
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Strock v. PressnellOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Health CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Federal Steel & Wire Corp. v. Ruhlin Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1989
- Brinkmoeller v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Gelbman v. Second National BankOhio Supreme Court · 1984
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.