Zuments v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd.

271 N.E.2d 813, 27 Ohio St. 2d 71, 56 Ohio Op. 2d 40, 1971 Ohio LEXIS 478
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJune 30, 1971
DocketNo. 70-603
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 271 N.E.2d 813 (Zuments v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd.) 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.

Bluebook
Zuments v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd., 271 N.E.2d 813, 27 Ohio St. 2d 71, 56 Ohio Op. 2d 40, 1971 Ohio LEXIS 478 (Ohio 1971).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s decedent, Dr. Nikolajs Zu-ments, was killed in a grade-crossing collision on February 5, 1965, while driving north on state route No. 69 in Wood County. Defendant’s employees were operating two engines in a southwesterly direction along a single railroad track at the crossing of the railroad tracks and route No. 69. The motor vehicle and the front engine collided, causing plaintiff’s decedent’s death. The case was tried to a jury in the Common Pleas Court. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and judgment was entered upon the verdict. Two members of the Court of Appeals reversed the jury’s verdict and entered final judgment for the defendant.

The concurring members of the Court of Appeals found that, as a matter of law, plaintiff’s decedent failed to effectively look and listen for approaching trains as he entered the crossing, and that the decedent’s conduct was the proximate cause of the collision.

This appeal was admitted for review upon the allowance of a motion by this court to certify the record, primarily on the question raised by appellant whether the [72]*72judgment of the Court of Appeals was one involving the weight of the evidence and thus requiring a unanimous concurrence of all three members of the Court of Appeals who heard the case.

The driver of a motor vehicle about to pass over a railroad grade crossing on a public highway is required both to look and to listen for approaching trains, and the looking and listening must be at such time and place and in such manner as to be effective for that purpose. Where the un-controvertible physical facts demonstrate that plaintiff’s decedent did not so do, then such failure on his part was a proximate cause of the collision as a matter of law. North v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. (1967), 9 Ohio St. 2d 169; Boles v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co. (1959), 168 Ohio St. 551.

We conclude that the Court of Appeals properly found that the decedent was negligent as a matter of law and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the collision. Thus, the Court of Appeals reversal was not on the weight of the evidence and therefore the constitutional provision (Section 3[B], Article IV), that the Court of Appeals can reverse judgments on the weight of the evidence only by a concurrence of all three members of the court, is not applicable.

A review of the entire record indicates that reasonable minds, by the proper application of the law governing this case, could come to only one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to plaintiff’s claim. Hamden Lodge v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co. (1934), 127 Ohio St. 469.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Schneider, Herbert, Duncan, Corrigan, Stern and Leach, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re Gilica
530 B.R. 429 (N.D. Ohio, 2015)
State v. Corrigan
2012 Ohio 5970 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2012)
Knoerzer v. Csx Transp., Inc., 1-07-78 (6-30-2008)
2008 Ohio 3233 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
Petre v. Norfolk Southern Corp.
260 F. App'x 756 (Sixth Circuit, 2007)
Petre v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
458 F. Supp. 2d 518 (N.D. Ohio, 2006)
Wooten v. CSX Railroad
842 N.E.2d 603 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
Ruby Harris v. General Motors Corporation
201 F.3d 800 (Sixth Circuit, 2000)
Harris v. GMC
Sixth Circuit, 2000
Lintner v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
694 N.E.2d 140 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1997)
Tardy v. Norfolk Southern Corp.
659 N.E.2d 817 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1995)
Cates v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
653 N.E.2d 1229 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1995)
Davidson v. CSX Transportation
631 N.E.2d 676 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1993)
Hicks v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
637 N.E.2d 19 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1993)
Glick v. Marler
613 N.E.2d 254 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1992)
Barger v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
590 N.E.2d 1369 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1990)
Tolliver v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
463 N.E.2d 389 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1984)
McDonald v. Ford Motor Co.
326 N.E.2d 252 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1975)
Strahm v. B. & O. R. R.
291 N.E.2d 783 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
271 N.E.2d 813, 27 Ohio St. 2d 71, 56 Ohio Op. 2d 40, 1971 Ohio LEXIS 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zuments-v-baltimore-ohio-rd-ohio-1971.