Freas v. Sullivan, No. 25461.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtSTEPHENSON
Citation130 Ohio St. 486,200 N.E. 639
Docket NumberNo. 25461.
Decision Date11 March 1936
PartiesFREAS v. SULLIVAN.

130 Ohio St. 486
200 N.E. 639

FREAS
v.
SULLIVAN.

No. 25461.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 11, 1936.


Error to Court of Appeals, Summit County.

Suit by Wodard G. Sullivan against Blair Freas. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and defendant brings error.-[Editorial Statement.]

Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed.

On June 22, 1932, Wodard G. Sullivan sued Blair Freas for $50,000 damages for personal injuries.

Sullivan claims that on May 15, 1932, at about the hour of 5:30 p. m., Freas, the owner of a Ford Tudor sedan automobile, was driving same in a southerly direction on State Route No. 80 in the state of Pennsylvania from Mahaffey to Indiana, and that he (Sullivan) was a passenger in such automobile at such time, at the request of Freas, and was sitting in the front seat with him; that such highway was improved with a concrete pavement about 16 feet in width, and the berm at the point in question was rough and unequal to the level of the pavement; and that about 200 feet southwest of such point, curved about 45 degrees to the northwest, and such curve was plainly visible from the point where the alleged collision between the automobiles took place.

When they reached a point in the highway about eight miles north of the town of Clymer, Pa., Freas was following three automobiles about 200 feet apart, when he suddenly and without warning accelerated the speed of his car and drove to the left of the car ahead of him and partly off the pavement of the highway, and when he was approaching and almost up to the third automobile he suddenly turned to his right, causing his car to come into collision with the left rear side of the third car, thereby causing his car to be turned over numerous times in the road, causing serious injury to Sullivan.

Sullivan then pleads enactments of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania, known as the ‘Vehicle Code and Other Rules of the Road,’ otherwise known as the Session Laws of 1929, beginning on page 905, and likewise known as Act No. 403 (75 P.S. § 1 et seq.). He further alleges that such act and laws of the state of Pennsylvania restricted the speed of Freas' car at the time and place of collision to 40 miles per hour.

He says his injuries were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Freas in the following particulars, namely:

1. That Freas drove his car negligently and in violation of section 1001(a) of the Vehicle Code of Pennsylvania (75 P.S. § 481(a), in that attempting to pass the third automobile he drove carelessly and wantonly, disregarding his (Sullivan's) right and safety, and in a manner so as to endanger his person by driving with the left wheels of the car unnecessarily upon the rough berm of the unimproved portion of the highway at an excessive speed of about 55 miles per hour when approaching and within about 200 feet of aforesaid curve, and by recklessly turning too short off the unimproved portion of the highway before he had passed the third car, without regard to the edge of the pavement, without having his automobile under proper control, and by driving directly into the left rear side of the third car.

2. That Freas failed to drive his car as an ‘ordinary’ prudent person would under the circumstances, and at such time and place drove in violation of section 1002 of said Pennsylvania Laws (75 P.S. § 501), in that he drove at an unreasonable, careless, improper, and unlawful rate of speed, to wit, about 55 miles per hour, without having due regard for the traffic then upon such highway, the surface and width of the highway, and other existing conditioins, to wit, the rough condition of the berm and the curve, in that he drove his car at such speed as to endanger his (Sullivan's) life and limb, and at a speed greater than would permit him to bring his car to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.

3. That Freas was driving his car at the time in direct violation of section 1007 of the Pennsylvania Laws (75 P.S. § 542), in that in attempting to pass the third automobile ahead he drove carelessly and wantonly too close to it and collided with it.

4. That Freas was guilty of wanton negligence and misconduct in continuing to drive at undiminished speed and without allowing room to pass the third automobile after he saw it in front of him and right up to the instant of striking it.

5. That Freas attempted to pass the third automobile without sounding his horn or giving any suitable or audible signal, by reason whereof he (Sullivan) was injured and damaged.

Freas admits that on the date alleged he was the owner of a Ford Tudor sedan automobile, that Sullivan was his invited guest in such automobile, that at such time his automobile collided with another automobile on the highway; and that as a result Sullivan sustained some injuries; but he denies the accident happened in the manner claimed, or that Sullivan was injured from the causes or to the extent claimed by him, and he denies each, every, and all other allegations made by Sullivan.

He denies he was negligent in any manner. He further states that the accident happened in the state of Pennsylvania and is governed by the laws of that state, and that the laws of Pennsylvania as construed by its courts provide that an invited guest who pays no compensation is not entitled to recover from the driver of an automobile without averring and proving that the accident happened as a result of the gross and wanton negligence of the driver of such automobile.

Sullivan denies each and every allegation made by Freas except such as are admissions, and he denies he was negligent in any manner whatsoever, either as a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • Litsinger Sign Co. v. American Sign Co., No. 40013
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • June 28, 1967
    ...Rd. Co. v. Welsh (1913), 89 Ohio St. 81, 105 N.E. 189, affirmed, 242 U.S. 303, 37 S.Ct. 116, 61 L.Ed. 319; Freas v. Sullivan (1936), 130 Ohio St. 486, 200 N.E. 639. It was presumed that out-of-state statutes were interpreted as similar Ohio statutes were, in the absence of evidence to the c......
  • Fox v. Morrison Motor Freight, Inc., No. 70-128
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • March 3, 1971
    ...in our cases to be realistically denied. See Collins v. McClure (1944), 143 Ohio St. 569, 56 N.E.2d 171; Freas v. Sullivan (1936), 130 Ohio St. 486, 487, 200 N.E. 639; Lyons v. Lyons (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 243, 208 N.E.2d 533; Ellis v. Garwood (1958), 168 Ohio St. 241, 152 N.E.2d Of all the c......
  • Goldstein v. DDB Needham Worldwide, Inc., No. C-1-88-680.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • June 14, 1990
    ...that the substantive law of the place where the injury occurred was controlling under the rule of lex loci delicti. Freas v. Sullivan, 130 Ohio St. 486, 200 N.E. 639 (1936); Collins v. McClure, 143 Ohio St. 569, 56 N.E.2d 171 (1944); Ellis v. Garwood, 168 Ohio St. 241, 152 N.E.2d 100 (1958)......
  • Lyons v. Lyons, No. 38915
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • June 16, 1965
    ...law of the place where the injury occurs is applicable. Collins v. McClure, 143 Ohio St. 569, 571, 56 N.E.2d 171; Freas v. Sullivan, 130 Ohio St. 486, 200 N.E. 639; Alexander v. Pennsylvania Co., 48 Ohio St. 623, 30 N.E. 69. It is also well settled that the procedural law of the forum is ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 cases
  • Litsinger Sign Co. v. American Sign Co., No. 40013
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • June 28, 1967
    ...Rd. Co. v. Welsh (1913), 89 Ohio St. 81, 105 N.E. 189, affirmed, 242 U.S. 303, 37 S.Ct. 116, 61 L.Ed. 319; Freas v. Sullivan (1936), 130 Ohio St. 486, 200 N.E. 639. It was presumed that out-of-state statutes were interpreted as similar Ohio statutes were, in the absence of evidence to the c......
  • Fox v. Morrison Motor Freight, Inc., No. 70-128
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • March 3, 1971
    ...in our cases to be realistically denied. See Collins v. McClure (1944), 143 Ohio St. 569, 56 N.E.2d 171; Freas v. Sullivan (1936), 130 Ohio St. 486, 487, 200 N.E. 639; Lyons v. Lyons (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 243, 208 N.E.2d 533; Ellis v. Garwood (1958), 168 Ohio St. 241, 152 N.E.2d Of all the c......
  • Goldstein v. DDB Needham Worldwide, Inc., No. C-1-88-680.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • June 14, 1990
    ...that the substantive law of the place where the injury occurred was controlling under the rule of lex loci delicti. Freas v. Sullivan, 130 Ohio St. 486, 200 N.E. 639 (1936); Collins v. McClure, 143 Ohio St. 569, 56 N.E.2d 171 (1944); Ellis v. Garwood, 168 Ohio St. 241, 152 N.E.2d 100 (1958)......
  • Lyons v. Lyons, No. 38915
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • June 16, 1965
    ...law of the place where the injury occurs is applicable. Collins v. McClure, 143 Ohio St. 569, 571, 56 N.E.2d 171; Freas v. Sullivan, 130 Ohio St. 486, 200 N.E. 639; Alexander v. Pennsylvania Co., 48 Ohio St. 623, 30 N.E. 69. It is also well settled that the procedural law of the forum is ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT