Flint v. Ace Doran Hauling and Rigging Co., Unpublished Decision (6-30-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Flint v. Ace Doran Hauling and Rigging Co., Unpublished Decision (6-30-1999)

DecidedJune 30, 1999

DocketNo. 97-P-0116

StatusUnpublished

This text of Flint v. Ace Doran Hauling and Rigging Co., Unpublished Decision (6-30-1999) (Flint v. Ace Doran Hauling and Rigging Co., Unpublished Decision (6-30-1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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

Flint v. Ace Doran Hauling and Rigging Co., Unpublished Decision (6-30-1999), (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Judgment affirmed. O'Neill, J., dissents with Dissenting Opinion. See Opinions and Judgment Entry. [NADER] (FORD) (O'NEILL)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE:

An appellate court cannot review whether a trial court errs by failing to give a proposed jury instruction when the appellant fails to object at trial and no discussion regarding the appellant's proposed jury instruction exists in the record.

CIVIL:

Civ.R. 51(A) requires that a proposed jury instruction must be in writing.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS:

A trial court does not err by giving a jury instruction regarding the assured clear distance ahead statute when reasonable minds could differ as to whether a vehicle is reasonably discernible.

A trial court does not err by refusing to give a jury instruction that the plaintiff had the right of way when the defendant's tractor-trailer had properly assumed it.

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