Barber v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Barber v. State

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 780, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 997

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 15, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 780 (Barber v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barber v. State, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 780, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 997 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF COURT

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

MAUCK, J.

One of the assignments of error relates to the application and interpretation of the language just quoted. It is contended that Sned-den was neither a pedestrain nor driver or oc[782]*782cupant of another vehicle and that he was not a person then in the lawful use of the roads or highways, and consequently that there was no violation on the part of the accused if the latter so operated his automobile as to endanger the life of Sncdden. We can not give to this section the restricted interpietation contended for. Snedden was in the lawful use of the highway. He was travelling in the machine of the accused and with the consent of the accused and there is as much reason for the law to protect his life and limb as to protect those of any other person using the highways. This view is sustained by all the authorities cited by the plaintiff in error. We find no error in the record.

(Middleton, J., concurs. Sayre, PJ., not sitting.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF COURT

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

MAUCK, J.

One of the assignments of error relates to the application and interpretation of the language just quoted. It is contended that Sned-den was neither a pedestrain nor driver or oc[782]*782cupant of another vehicle and that he was not a person then in the lawful use of the roads or highways, and consequently that there was no violation on the part of the accused if the latter so operated his automobile as to endanger the life of Sncdden. We can not give to this section the restricted interpietation contended for. Snedden was in the lawful use of the highway. He was travelling in the machine of the accused and with the consent of the accused and there is as much reason for the law to protect his life and limb as to protect those of any other person using the highways. This view is sustained by all the authorities cited by the plaintiff in error. We find no error in the record.

(Middleton, J., concurs. Sayre, PJ., not sitting.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 780, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-state-ohioctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack