Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Street Railway Co. v. Keehan

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 5, 1932No. 4140PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROSS, PJ.

The defendant in error charges in the amended petition that the plaintiff in error was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout; that it failed to have the car under control; that it failed to sound a warning; and that it operated the street car over tracks in such a rough and uneven condition that the street car was caused to sway; and, that the street car was operated at an unreasonable speed.

There is no evidence sustaining any of these specifications of negligence except as to the condition of the tracks and the swaying of the car.

The defendant in error, in the alternative,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ross v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1931

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Heinen v. HeinenNevada Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Davis v. ZuckerOhio Court of Appeals · 1951
  3. Smith v. ThomsOhio Court of Appeals · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API