Jackson v. Mannor, 7457
| Decision Date | 18 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 7457,7457 |
| Citation | 107 N.E.2d 151,90 Ohio App. 424 |
| Parties | , 48 O.O. 103 JACKSON et al. v. MANNOR. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Section 6307-40, General Code, providing that the operator of a motor vehicle shall yield the right of way at an intersection to a motor vehicle approaching from the right, is applicable to a motorist who approaches an intersection, stops at a stop sign, and can see only 25 feet to his right along the intersecting street.
Smith H. Tyler, Jr., Cincinnati, for appellants.
Long & Bloom and Charles Long, Cincinnati, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the Municipal Court of Cincinnati, which court rendered judgment for the defendant, Chollie Mannor, upon his cross-bill of particulars for the damage to his automobile caused by a collision with the automobile of the plaintiff, Coleman Jackson, in the intersection of Cutter and Richmond streets in the city of Cincinnati. The plaintiff and defendant were operating their respective automobiles at the time, and each sought to recover for the damage to his automobile.
The plaintiff testified that he was traveling westwardly at about 8:30 a. m.; that he was going at 20 miles per hour as he approached Cutter street and saw defendant in his automobile standing just south of Richmond street at the stop sign on Cutter street, apparently waiting for him to cross the intersection; that he was only 10 to 15 feet from the intersection and that he did not see the defendant thereafter until he was right in front of his automobile when the collision occurred in the northeast quarter of the intersection. He also testified that there were several automobiles parked on the south side of Richmond street, just east of Cutter street. The defendant testified that he was proceeding in a northerly direction on Cutter street and stopped at the stop sign just south of Richmond street; that he 'looked up' and not seeing or hearing anything he started up and after he was in the intersection he 'looked out' and saw that he (plaintiff) was 'right' on him; that he could not say how fast plaintiff was traveling; that there was about 20 to 25 feet of skid marks; that the front of plaintiff's automobile struck the right front door of his automobile and pushed it westwardly four or five feet; that automobiles were parked on the south side of Richmond street, just east of Cutter; that he could see east on Richmond street, from where he stopped on Cutter street, a distance of about 25 feet; and that the collision occurred in the northeast quarter of the intersection.
A police officer who appeared on the scene shortly after the collision testified that the defendant's automobile was almost wholly in the northeast quarter and the plaintiff's automobile had just entered the northeast quarter of the intersection; and that he noticed some skid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kesmarki v. Kisling, 18018-18019.
...N.E.2d 321 (1955); Pritchard v. Cavanaugh, 18 Ohio Law Abst. 354 (1934), affirmed, 129 Ohio St. 542, 196 N.E. 164; Jackson v. Mannor, 90 Ohio App. 424, 107 N.E.2d 151 (1951). Defendant counters these assertions by pointing to Ohio law which limits the protection of a right of way statute to......
-
Bowlin v. Black & White Cab Co.
...to form a partnership, where testimony of the plaintiff amounts to an admission that the partnership was launched); Jackson v. Mannor, 90 Ohio App. 424, 107 N.E.2d 151 (testimony by defendant as to the speed of the car he was driving); and Gastauer v. Taxicabs of Cincinnati, Inc. (1957), 10......
- Marrs' Estate, In re, 32917