Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hi-Speed Auto Wash, Inc. v. Simeri

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided May 10, 1976No. 3-574A77Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion.

Hoffman, J.

I am unable to agree with the result reached by the majority opinion in this case.

*124From the facts set out in the majority opinion it is not disputed that both parties knew the automobile door was going to be closed. Both were in an equal position to know that appellee’s finger was in a dangerous position. Both parties had a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care to avoid injury.

In Hunsberger v. Wyman (1966), 247 Ind. 369, at 374-75, 216 N.E.2d 345, at 348-49, our Supreme Court stated:

“In this case we have two parties with the same knowledge and the same…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hunsberger v. WymanIndiana Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Hi-Speed Auto Wash, Inc. v. SimeriIndiana Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. v. SandersIndiana Court of Appeals · 1908
  4. Zibilich v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Abent v. Michigan Cab Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937

1 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