Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Arrison

Ohio Court of Appeals

Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Arrison

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 56

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 6, 1926

DocketNo. 6916

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 56 (Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Arrison) 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

Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Arrison, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 56 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

VICKERY, J.

This action was brought in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas by Herman C. Arrison to recover damages for injuries received just after alighting from a street car. The accident occurred at the intersection of two main thoroughfares and was caused by an automobile which was traveling upon the wrong side of the road, striking Arrison. At the end of Arrison’s testimony the Railroad Company asked for a directed verdict which was denied by the trial court and the jury returned a judgment of $500 in favor of Arrison. Error was prosecuted to reverse the lower court and the Court of Appeals held:

1. The doctrine that a railroad company must provide a safe landing place for passengers does not extend their care to a point that they have to warn alighting passengers of people who are violating the rules of the road.

2. As there is no negligence imputed to the Railway Co. the judgment should be reversed and .entered in favor of the Company.

Judgment reversed.

(Cushing, J., 1st Dist., concurs.)

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

VICKERY, J.

This action was brought in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas by Herman C. Arrison to recover damages for injuries received just after alighting from a street car. The accident occurred at the intersection of two main thoroughfares and was caused by an automobile which was traveling upon the wrong side of the road, striking Arrison. At the end of Arrison’s testimony the Railroad Company asked for a directed verdict which was denied by the trial court and the jury returned a judgment of $500 in favor of Arrison. Error was prosecuted to reverse the lower court and the Court of Appeals held:

1. The doctrine that a railroad company must provide a safe landing place for passengers does not extend their care to a point that they have to warn alighting passengers of people who are violating the rules of the road.

2. As there is no negligence imputed to the Railway Co. the judgment should be reversed and .entered in favor of the Company.

Judgment reversed.

(Cushing, J., 1st Dist., concurs.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-ry-co-v-arrison-ohioctapp-1926.