Legal Opinion

Mudrich v. Standard Oil Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1950No. 31761PublishedCited by 93 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStewart, J.

Defendant insists that it is entitled to a judgment in its favor for several reasons which can be encompassed by three propositions:

1. That it owed no duty to plaintiff.

2. That plaintiff assumed the risk of the injury he received when he jumped into the gasoline fire for the purpose of putting it out.

3. That any negligence on the part of defendant was not the proximate cause of the injuries to plaintiff but that an intervening cause broke the chain of causation between the spilling of the gasoline and the burns which plaintiff received.

We shall discuss the propositions in the order in which…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Neff Lumber Co. v. First National BankOhio Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Frewen v. PageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
  3. Mouse v. Central Savings & Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Soles v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945

3Cited by93 opinions

  1. Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Mussivand v. DavidOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Strother v. HutchinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Paugh v. HanksOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998

88 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