Legal Opinion

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Potter

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1925No. 19015PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

Actionable negligence requires that in order to recover there should be allegation and proof of a legal duty owing by the defendant and of a breach of that duty. On the trial, in the course of the examination in chief, plaintiff tendered testimony that he and others had previously ridden upon this same train and left it at the St. Clair street crossing where the plaintiff was injured. This testimony was admitted over the objection of the defendant. In that connection the court also charged the jury that, if, prior to the accident, the company had permitted persons to travel and pass over…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway Co. v. BinghamOhio Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Frewen v. PageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
  3. Illinois Central Railroad v. EicherIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Kennedy v. ChaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Murphy v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Federal Steel & Wire Corp. v. Ruhlin Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Herbert v. Banc One Brokerage Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. Armour & Co. v. OttOhio Supreme Court · 1927

9 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