Brinkmoeller v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 26 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-274,74-274 |
| Citation | 41 Ohio St.2d 223,325 N.E.2d 233 |
| Parties | , 70 O.O.2d 424 BRINKMOELLER, Gdn., et al., Appellees, v. WILSON, Taxicabs of Cincinnati, Inc., Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A trial court should exercise great caution in sustaining a motion for a directed verdict on the opening statement of counsel; it must be clear that all the facts expected to be proved, and those that have been stated, do not constitute a cause of action or a defense, and the statement must be liberally construed in favor of the party against whom the motion has been made.
This lawsuit was instituted in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County by plaintiffs, Carl A. Brinkmoeller, individually, and as guardian of the person and estate of his wife, Kathleen C. Brinkmoeller, an incompetent, for damages for personal injuries sustained by Mrs. Brinkmoeller when she was struck by an automobile after temporarily alighting from a taxicab, owned and operated by Taxicabs of Cincinnati, Inc. (Taxicabs), which she hired as a passenger for carriage and which relationship existed at the time the accident occurred.
The question of any liability of the operator of the vehicle which struck Mrs. Brinkmoeller is not a part of this proceeding.
Taxicabs is the only defendant herein, and its motion to separately try the issue of liability was granted by the trial court. We are concerned with that trial in which the basic negligence asserted in counsel for plaintiffs' opening statement, as first made and then amended, was that Taxicabs did not let Mrs. Brinkmoeller off at a safe place and thereby proximately caused her injuries. Plaintiffs' attorney declared therein that the evidence would show that Mrs. Brinkmoeller was under the influence of alcohol and was in a highly emotional state when she hired the taxicab; that the defendant's driver was aware of the signs of intoxication and her emotional state; that, when he delivered her to a location to which she had directed him, the driver knew that she had to cross the street; that she was staggering from intoxication at the time the driver let her out of the cab; that she crossed the street and walked on the traffic side of parked cars that blocked her access to the sidewalk to get to pilot Inn where the driver knew she was going; that she 'may have staggered backwards' into the path of the car which struck her; that the driver did not 'warn her or take any steps that might have prevented the accident'; that the relationship between Mrs. Brinkmoeller and the taxicab company at the time of the accident was that of carrier for hire and passenger because the driver was to turn around, wait for and pick her up again in front of Pilot Inn, when she had completed her mission therein, and take her somewhere else; that the defendant admitted in its answer that Mrs. Brinkmoeller proceeded ultimately across Edwards Road to the west side and at that point she either stepped or fell backwards into the southbound lane of travel where she was struck; that the driver failed to warn Mrs. Brinkmoeller of the approach of traffic traveling south on Edwards Road before the accident occurred; and that the driver was negligent in failing to stop the taxicab on the west side of Edwards Road in front of Pilot Inn for her to alight.
At the conclusion of the opening statement of counsel for plaintiffs, defendant made a motion for a directed verdict. The trial court granted this motion for the stated reason that:
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, and remanded the cause for further proceedings according to law.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Wilson, Curry, Stridsberg & Rimedio and Roger C. Stridsberg, Cincinnati, for appellees.
Barbour, Kimpel & Allen and Edward K. Halaby, Cincinnati, for appellant.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
In reaching our decision we do not hold, and have no intentention of implying, that the duty of a taxicab driver to an intoxicated passenger includes acting as a nurse, guardian, attendant or groom to such passenger. Rather, the thrust of our holding is that defendant's motion for a directed verdict, made after counsel for plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitmer v. Zochowski
...to the injury as a proximate cause and as an element without which the injury would not have occurred. Brinkmoeller v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 223, 226, 325 N.E.2d 233 (1975) ; Reeves v. Healy, 192 Ohio App.3d 769, 2011-Ohio-1487, 950 N.E.2d 605, ¶ 70 (10th Dist.). Thus, for contributory negl......
-
Wright v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 2005 Ohio 3494 (OH 6/27/2005), 03CA2.
...on the opening statement of counsel, the trial court "should exercise great caution in sustaining [the] motion." Brinkmoeller v. Wilson (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 223, 325 N.E.2d 233, syllabus. To sustain a directed verdict motion made upon opening statement, "it must be clear that all the facts......
-
Xiao v. Cleveland Clinic Found.
...Surgery of Akron, Inc., 182 Ohio App.3d 768, 2009-Ohio-2460, 915 N.E.2d 361, ¶ 61, (9th Dist.) quoting Brinkmoeller v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 223, 226, 325 N.E.2d 233 (1975). {¶ 101} Appellants' sole argument to support such an instruction is that Dr. Di was contributory or comparatively neg......
-
Crawford v. Halkovics
...the injury as a proximate cause thereof, and as an element without which the injury would not have occurred." Brinkmoeller v. Wilson (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 223, 226, 325 N.E.2d 233 The evidence in this case, when construed in the defendant's favor, is sufficient to support a finding that the......
-
Chapter § 3.04 RENTAL CARS
...taxi cab). Missouri: Holloway v. State, 937 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. App. 1996) (taxicabs are common carriers). Ohio: Brinkmoeller v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St. 2d 223, 325 N.E.2d 233 (1975).[675] See § 3.05[2] infra.[676] See id.[677] See § 3.05[4] infra.[678] See id.[679] See, e.g., Sirrah Companies v. B......