Ross v. Nutt

Ohio Court of Appeals

Ross v. Nutt

29 Ohio Law Rep. 53

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 16, 1964

Docket38615 and 38616

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ohio Law Rep. 53 (Ross v. Nutt) 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

Ross v. Nutt, 29 Ohio Law Rep. 53 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

[54]*54Appeals from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County. Matthias, Judge.

The violation by the operator of a motor vehicle of a city ordinance prohibiting the leaving of an unattended motor vehicle without locking the ignition and removing the key does not impose liability on such operator for the negligent operation of such vehicle by a thief, causing injuries to a third person.

Judgments affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, O’Neill, Griffith and Herbert, JJ., concur. Gibson, J., concurs in the syllabus and judgment.

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

[54]*54Appeals from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County. Matthias, Judge.

The violation by the operator of a motor vehicle of a city ordinance prohibiting the leaving of an unattended motor vehicle without locking the ignition and removing the key does not impose liability on such operator for the negligent operation of such vehicle by a thief, causing injuries to a third person.

Judgments affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, O’Neill, Griffith and Herbert, JJ., concur. Gibson, J., concurs in the syllabus and judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ohio Law Rep. 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-nutt-ohioctapp-1964.