Gilman Motor Trucking Co. v. Federal Ins. Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Gilman Motor Trucking Co. v. Federal Ins. Co.

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 518, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1786

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 1923

DocketNo. 4386

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 518 (Gilman Motor Trucking Co. v. Federal Ins. Co.) 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

Gilman Motor Trucking Co. v. Federal Ins. Co., 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 518, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1786 (Ohio Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SULLIVAN J.

Epitomized Opinion

In going up a steep hill, the drive chain of a truck owned by the Gilman Company broke and the truck immediately descended, colliding with a truck of the Brandt Company. The Federal Insurance Company as insurer of the Brandt Company paid the latter for the damages and secured an assignment of the Brandt Company’s claim against the Gilman Trucking Company. The evidence disclosed that the breaking of the drive chain was due to a struetur-la and latent defect. The jury' returned a verdict for plaintiff and judgment was rendered thereon. The Trucking Company prosecuted error on the ground that there was no proof of negligence on its part. The Court of Appeals in reversing the judgment held:

1. There was no proof of negligence, as the accident was due to a latent defect,

2. The occurring of an accident does not establish prima facie evidence of negligence, nor is the doctrine of res ipso loquitur applicable to a case of this kind.

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

SULLIVAN J.

Epitomized Opinion

In going up a steep hill, the drive chain of a truck owned by the Gilman Company broke and the truck immediately descended, colliding with a truck of the Brandt Company. The Federal Insurance Company as insurer of the Brandt Company paid the latter for the damages and secured an assignment of the Brandt Company’s claim against the Gilman Trucking Company. The evidence disclosed that the breaking of the drive chain was due to a struetur-la and latent defect. The jury' returned a verdict for plaintiff and judgment was rendered thereon. The Trucking Company prosecuted error on the ground that there was no proof of negligence on its part. The Court of Appeals in reversing the judgment held:

1. There was no proof of negligence, as the accident was due to a latent defect,

2. The occurring of an accident does not establish prima facie evidence of negligence, nor is the doctrine of res ipso loquitur applicable to a case of this kind.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 518, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilman-motor-trucking-co-v-federal-ins-co-ohioctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack