Cincinnati Trac. Co. v. Sanders

Citations

• 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 413

Syllabus

<p>PLEADING — STREET RAILWAYS.</p> <p>1. Negligence of Rider in Vehicle in Failing to Warn Driver of Approach of Street Car at Street Intersection Defeats Recovery Unless Defendant’s Motorman Saw the Peril in Time to Avoid Collision.</p> <p>In an action for personal injuries sustained in a collision between an electric car and a wagon at the intersection of two streets, an admission of plaintiff who was seated with the,driver that she saw the car coming nearly half a square away, but she made no attempt to warn the driver, raises a presumption of negligence on her part which would entitle the street railway company to an instructed verdict in its favor, in the absence of testimony that the motorman saw the peril of the plaintiff and failed to exercise proper care to avoid a collision.</p> <p>3. Ordinary Care of Street Railway to Driver of Vehicle is Only Required.</p> <p>Proper care on the part of a motorman meeting vehicles at street intersections is not “to do all he can to avoid a collision,” but merely to exercise ordinary care.</p> <p>3. Under General Denial Allegation of Plaintiff’s Negligence is ’ Misleading.</p> <p>Where a defense in an action for negligence is a general denial, an allegation that the accident was due solely to the negligence of the plaintiff serves no good purpose and is misleading.</p>