McCaffrey v. Youngstown Municipal Ry Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

McCaffrey v. Youngstown Municipal Ry Co.

18 Ohio Law. Abs. 98, 1934 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1069

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 19, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 Ohio Law. Abs. 98 (McCaffrey v. Youngstown Municipal Ry 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

McCaffrey v. Youngstown Municipal Ry Co., 18 Ohio Law. Abs. 98, 1934 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1069 (Ohio Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

[99]*99OPINION

By KLINGER, J.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the court erred in directing a verdict on the opening statement and the pleadings, and that her case should have been submitted to the jury under proper instructions. The opening statement clearly showed the violation of a city ordinance. However, it also shows that the injury to the plaintiff was in no way attributable to the violation of this ordinance. Had the injury occurred to the plaintiff after she alighted from the bus and while attempting to arrive at the curb and sidewalk, then the failure on the part of the bus line to comply with this requirement would be negligence per se. The plaintiff cites 125 Oh St, 280, in support of her contention. However, the facts in this'case and in the case cited are not comparable.

In the opinon of this court, the law as laid down in 107 Oh St, 528, is applicable to the facts in this case, and also in the 42 Oh Ap, 549, (11 Abs 611), and in the 121 Oh St, 26.

We are therefore of the opinion that the trial court was justified in directing a verdict on the pleadings and on statements of plaintiff’s attorney in favor of the defendant. Judgment affirmed. Exceptions.

ROBERTS and GUERNSEY, JJ, concur in the judgment.

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

[99]*99OPINION

By KLINGER, J.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the court erred in directing a verdict on the opening statement and the pleadings, and that her case should have been submitted to the jury under proper instructions. The opening statement clearly showed the violation of a city ordinance. However, it also shows that the injury to the plaintiff was in no way attributable to the violation of this ordinance. Had the injury occurred to the plaintiff after she alighted from the bus and while attempting to arrive at the curb and sidewalk, then the failure on the part of the bus line to comply with this requirement would be negligence per se. The plaintiff cites 125 Oh St, 280, in support of her contention. However, the facts in this'case and in the case cited are not comparable.

In the opinon of this court, the law as laid down in 107 Oh St, 528, is applicable to the facts in this case, and also in the 42 Oh Ap, 549, (11 Abs 611), and in the 121 Oh St, 26.

We are therefore of the opinion that the trial court was justified in directing a verdict on the pleadings and on statements of plaintiff’s attorney in favor of the defendant. Judgment affirmed. Exceptions.

ROBERTS and GUERNSEY, JJ, concur in the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Ohio Law. Abs. 98, 1934 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccaffrey-v-youngstown-municipal-ry-co-ohioctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack