Legal Opinion

Baier v. Cleveland Ry. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 21, 1937No. 26353PublishedCited by 31 opinions

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

  1. Wood v. North Carolina Public-Service Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  2. Chesley v. Waterloo, Cedar Falls & Northern RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
  3. Ruddy v. IngebretSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
  4. Jacobson v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1922
  5. 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

  1. Strock v. PressnellOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Health CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Federal Steel & Wire Corp. v. Ruhlin Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Brinkmoeller v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Gelbman v. Second National BankOhio Supreme Court · 1984

26 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