Roy R. Hubbard, Administrator of the Estate of William E. Hubbard v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company

Sixth Circuit

Roy R. Hubbard, Administrator of the Estate of William E. Hubbard v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company

232 F.2d 631, 82 Ohio Law. Abs. 169, 9 Ohio Op. 2d 477, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3073

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 1956

Docket12661_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 F.2d 631 (Roy R. Hubbard, Administrator of the Estate of William E. Hubbard v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roy R. Hubbard, Administrator of the Estate of William E. Hubbard v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 232 F.2d 631, 82 Ohio Law. Abs. 169, 9 Ohio Op. 2d 477, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3073 (6th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action, appellant, as the administrator of the decedent William E. Hubbard, charged the appellee railroad company with the negligent operation of an engine and its tender, causing a collision on U. S. Highway 42 near Hageman, Ohio, between the train and a truck being driven by the decedent. The driver of the truck was killed in the collision. At the close of appellee’s case, the District Judge sustained appellee’s motion for a directed verdict.

Appellant contends that there was negligence on the part of appellee in backing its engine and tender slowly across the highway so as to block the highway in front of the on-coming truck. But the evidence also conclusively showed that the engine and tender, moving at approximately four or five miles per hour had completely preempted the highway prior to the time of the impact and that the decedent so operated his truck as to crash into the side of the tender while traveling at' a high rate of speed under conditions of good visibility and cautionary warnings of the... existence and proximity of the 'crossing,' constituting contributory negligence as a matter; pf law. See Jackson v. Frederick, 152 Ohio St. 423, 89 N.E.2d 645. We are of the opinion that the District Judge was not in error in directing a verdict for the appellee. See Reed v. Erie R. Co., 134 Ohio St. 31, 35, 15 N.E.2d 637; Canterbury v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 158 Ohio St. 68, 76, 107 N.E.2d 115.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this action, appellant, as the administrator of the decedent William E. Hubbard, charged the appellee railroad company with the negligent operation of an engine and its tender, causing a collision on U. S. Highway 42 near Hageman, Ohio, between the train and a truck being driven by the decedent. The driver of the truck was killed in the collision. At the close of appellee’s case, the District Judge sustained appellee’s motion for a directed verdict.

Appellant contends that there was negligence on the part of appellee in backing its engine and tender slowly across the highway so as to block the highway in front of the on-coming truck. But the evidence also conclusively showed that the engine and tender, moving at approximately four or five miles per hour had completely preempted the highway prior to the time of the impact and that the decedent so operated his truck as to crash into the side of the tender while traveling at' a high rate of speed under conditions of good visibility and cautionary warnings of the... existence and proximity of the 'crossing,' constituting contributory negligence as a matter; pf law. See Jackson v. Frederick, 152 Ohio St. 423, 89 N.E.2d 645. We are of the opinion that the District Judge was not in error in directing a verdict for the appellee. See Reed v. Erie R. Co., 134 Ohio St. 31, 35, 15 N.E.2d 637; Canterbury v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 158 Ohio St. 68, 76, 107 N.E.2d 115.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 F.2d 631, 82 Ohio Law. Abs. 169, 9 Ohio Op. 2d 477, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-r-hubbard-administrator-of-the-estate-of-william-e-hubbard-v-the-ca6-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack