Clarkson v. Clark

Ohio Court of Appeals

Clarkson v. Clark

157 N.E. 910, 25 Ohio App. 377, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 413, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 496

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 31, 1927

Docket1873

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 N.E. 910 (Clarkson v. Clark) 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

Clarkson v. Clark, 157 N.E. 910, 25 Ohio App. 377, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 413, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 496 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDS,J.

This is a personal injury case brought by James Clark against Charles Clarkson in the Lucas Common Pleas, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in his favor in the amount of $1000.

The facts are that Clarkson was driving his-car up to a street intersection and just as he got there the signal changed and he speeded up. Clark when he started to cross the street had the signal with him, but it changed before he reached the other curb. The pavement was slippery and wet and Clarkson in attempting to avoid the accident skidded into Clark.

On error proceedings from the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:

1. “Ancient rights have not changed because new vehicles of travel have been introduced upon the streets, nor because a portion of the people who ride, being in haste to reach their destination demand rapid transit. The streets remain for all -the people, and he who goes afoot has the right, especially at a crossing, to walk to his destination; he should not be compelled to run, or to dodge and scramble, to avoid collision -with vehicles. - - - There is no priority of right, so that the right of neither is exclusive. Railway Co. v. Snell, 54 OS. 181, 204.

2. Certainly a pedestrian has' the same right, in the exercise of ordinary care, to cross a street at an intersection no faster than a walk and facts ought not to justify the statement, publicly made, that no one has seen a person walk across the streets in the down town section of the city.

Judgment affirmed.

(Williams, Lloyd, JJ., concur.)

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

RICHARDS,J.

This is a personal injury case brought by James Clark against Charles Clarkson in the Lucas Common Pleas, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in his favor in the amount of $1000.

The facts are that Clarkson was driving his-car up to a street intersection and just as he got there the signal changed and he speeded up. Clark when he started to cross the street had the signal with him, but it changed before he reached the other curb. The pavement was slippery and wet and Clarkson in attempting to avoid the accident skidded into Clark.

On error proceedings from the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:

1. “Ancient rights have not changed because new vehicles of travel have been introduced upon the streets, nor because a portion of the people who ride, being in haste to reach their destination demand rapid transit. The streets remain for all -the people, and he who goes afoot has the right, especially at a crossing, to walk to his destination; he should not be compelled to run, or to dodge and scramble, to avoid collision -with vehicles. - - - There is no priority of right, so that the right of neither is exclusive. Railway Co. v. Snell, 54 OS. 181, 204.

2. Certainly a pedestrian has' the same right, in the exercise of ordinary care, to cross a street at an intersection no faster than a walk and facts ought not to justify the statement, publicly made, that no one has seen a person walk across the streets in the down town section of the city.

Judgment affirmed.

(Williams, Lloyd, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 N.E. 910, 25 Ohio App. 377, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 413, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarkson-v-clark-ohioctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack