Toledo Railways & Light Co. v. Mayers

Citations

• 93 Ohio St. (N.S.) 304

Syllabus

<p>Imputed negligence — Driver and occupant of automobile — Charge to jury — Degree of care by occupant — Control and authority ■ over driver — Collision with street car at crossing.</p> <p>Plaintiff was injured as a result of a collision of a street car and an automobile in which he was riding, as the guest of the owner and driver, and in the front seat with him, said collision occurring at an intersection of highways outside the city limits, Held:</p> <p>1. That the negligence of such driver is not imputable to the plaintiff, and if the collision was caused by the negligent operation of the street car, plaintiff may recover from the operating company unless his own negligent act or omission directly contributed to cause his injury:</p> <p>2. Though plaintiff was required to exercise ordinary care for his own safety and to reasonably use his faculties of sight and hearing to observe and avoid the dangers incident to crossing such track, an instruction that he “was not exonerated from any duty at all by reason of the fact that he himself was not driving the machine” is erroneous.</p> <p>3. In such case the giving of an instruction which assumes that the driver acted upon the permission, and suggests that he was under the control and subject to the authority, of the plaintiff, constitutes prejudicial error.</p>