Imfeld v. City of Hamilton
| Decision Date | 12 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 34770,34770 |
| Parties | , 1 O.O.2d 157 IMFELD, Adm'r, Appellant, v. CITY OF HAMILTON, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Imfeld & Imfeld, Hamilton, for appellant.
E. Hjalmar Persson, Director of Law, Hamilton, for appellee.
Plaintiff bases his cause of action on the manner in which the traffic signal was operated, claiming the street was not open and free from nuisance as required by Section 723.01, Revised Code.
It is alleged in the amended petition that traffic at the intersection involved, which was a 'T' type, was governed by a signal device erected and operated by the defendant city, and that by its operation the signal device allowed vehicular traffic to proceed in a northerly direction at all times and also allowed pedestrian traffic to cross the same street from west to east with a green signal in its favor, thereby placing the pedestrian in an extra hazardous and dangerous position--that of assuming he had the right of way to cross, whereas in fact he could not safely cross because of the green arrow allowing vehicular traffic to cross the cross-walk at all times. There is no allegation or claim that the signal device was not functioning in the manner in which it was designed to function.
Plaintiff's allegations as to the functioning of the traffic signal will not support an action against the city to recover damages for the death of decedent. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on authority of Tolliver v. City of Newark, 145 Ohio St. 517, 62 N.E.2d 357, 161 A.L.R. 1391.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strohofer v. City of Cincinnati, s. 82-674
...of Section 723.01, Revised Code. (Paragraph five of the syllabus of Tolliver v. Newark, 145 Ohio St. 517 , overruled; Imfeld v. Hamilton, 166 Ohio St. 11 overruled.)" (Emphasis The majority, however, summarily dismisses this precedent without citation: "It is equally difficult to conceive o......
-
Hammell v. City of Albuquerque
...Newark, 145 Ohio St. 517, 62 N.E.2d 357, 161 A.L.R. 1391; Martin v. City of Canton, 41 Ohio App. 420, 180 N.E. 78; Imfeld v. City of Hamilton, 166 Ohio St. 11, 138 N.E.2d 649; Kirk v. City of Muskogee, 183 Okl. 536, 83 P.2d 594; Powell v. City of Nashville, 167 Tenn. 334, 69 S.W.2d 894, 92 ......
-
Fankhauser v. City of Mansfield
...Code. (Paragraph five of the syllabus of Tolliver v. City of Newark, 145 Ohio St. 517, 62 N.E.2d 357, overruled; Imfeld v. City of Hamilton, 166 Ohio St. 11, 138 N.E.2d 649, Two automobiles collided at an intersection in Mansfield, Ohio, at 9:00 p. m. on August 22, 1964. An overhead electri......
-
Gabris v. Blake
...411, 83 N.E.2d 389. Compare Tolliver v. City of Newark, 145 Ohio St. 517, 62 N.E.2d 357, 161 A.L.R. 1391; Imfeld, Admr., v. City of Hamilton, 166 Ohio St. 11, 138 N.E.2d 649; and Fritz, a Minor v. City of Columbus, 5 Ohio St.2d 53, 213 N.E.2d The case of Gottesman, Admr. v. City of Clevelan......