Winkler v. City of Columbus
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.
Assuming for the purpose of this de cisión that the defendant city was guilty of negligence, we are of the opinion that the record clearly discloses negligence on the part of plaintiff. Such negligence was not dispelled. Therefore, the decision of this case depends upon whether such negligence of plaintiff contributed directly to her injury.
In the case of Highway Construction Co. v. Sorna, 122 Ohio St., 258, 171 N. E., 312, relied upon by the trial court, it was held in paragraph one of the syllabus :
“One. using a sidewalk, crosswalk, street or highway, which ordinary and reasonable care…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. LeeOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- New York Central Rd. v. StevensOhio Supreme Court · 1933
- Highway Construction Co. v. SornaOhio Supreme Court · 1930
- E. Kahn's Sons Co. v. EllswickOhio Supreme Court · 1930
3Cited by31 opinions
- Nickey v. BrownOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
- Bird v. PritchardOhio Court of Appeals · 1973
- Bowlin v. Black & White Cab Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1966
- Robert F. Schiller v. Penn Central Transportation Company, and General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1975
- Shapiro v. BurkonsOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.