Stump v. Phillians
This text of 207 N.E.2d 762 (Stump v. Phillians) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
An operator of a motor vehicle has control over its brake equipment and the maintenance thereof. He has a statutory duty to maintain the brakes in good working order at all times. Ordinary care is not sufficient to constitute compliance. An emergency caused by brake failure cannot serve as a legal excuse for defendant’s failure to comply with the assured-clear-distance-ahead provision of Section 4511.21, Revised Code. Spalding v. Waxler, 2 Ohio St. 2d 1, paragraph six of the syllabus; Bird v. Hart, 2 Ohio St. 2d 9.
Defendant was negligent as a matter of law, and reasonable minds could conclude only that his negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s vehicle being struck. Therefore, the trial court should have directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff on the question of liability and submitted only the question of damages to the jury. Kehrer v. McKittrick, 176 Ohio St. 192; Bird v. Hart, supra.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
207 N.E.2d 762, 2 Ohio St. 2d 209, 31 Ohio Op. 2d 413, 1965 Ohio LEXIS 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stump-v-phillians-ohio-1965.