Legal Opinion
Morrow v. Hume, Admx.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 17, 1936No. 25413PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
Were the facts such that the court was warranted in submitting the questions of wilfulness and wantonness to the jury?
The amended petition charged that the defendant was guilty of wanton and wilful carelessness, negligence and recklessness in driving his automobile at a high rate of speed and permitting it to leave the highway. The trial court, in the charge, and by giving plaintiff’s requests referred to in the journal entry of the Court of Appeals, injected “wilful and wanton negligence” into the case.
The theory upon which the case was tried was that if the defendant was guilty of “wilful…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Universal Concrete Pipe Co. v. BassettOhio Supreme Court · 1936
- Bloom v. Leech, Admr.Ohio Supreme Court · 1929
- Dowd-Feder, Inc. v. TruesdellOhio Supreme Court · 1936
- Vega, Admr. v. EvansOhio Supreme Court · 1934
- Weller, Exrx. v. WorstallOhio Supreme Court · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Feitig v. ChalkleySupreme Court of Virginia · 1946
- Fink v. New York Central Rd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
- Masters v. New York Central Rd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1947
- Warner v. LederSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Etheridge v. . EtheridgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.