Manker v. Shaffer, 33587
| Decision Date | 07 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 33587,33587 |
| Citation | 118 N.E.2d 641,161 Ohio St. 285 |
| Parties | , 53 O.O. 171 MANKER v. SHAFFER. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a motor vehicle and the operation thereof are exclusively within the control of the driver, and a paying passenger in such motor vehicle is injured when the vehicle runs off the road, and the accident is unexplained and is one which is not commonly incident to the operation of a motor vehicle, the occurrence itself raises a permissible inference of negligence on the part of the driver and presents a question for submission to the jury in an action against the driver based on such injury.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery county.
On the morning of January 3, 1951, at about the hour of 6:30, it was dark and rainy. Defendant, Norris Shaffer, was driving his station wagon over a public highway which extends through parts of Greene and Montgomery counties and was transporting nine other men, including plaintiff, to a factory in the city of Dayton. Defendant was proceeding at a speed somewhere between 40 and 50 miles per hour when suddenly the car left the road and struck a tree. Plaintiff claims to have suffered personal injuries thereby and brought an action for damages against the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County.
The petition charges defendant with negligence generally and alleges he did not have his car under proper management and control and was driving at a rate of speed higher than was reasonable under the existing circumstances. The answer denies negligence.
On the trial of the action, evidence was introduced tending to show that plaintiff paid the defendant at the rate of $1 per day for being transported to and from work in the station wagon.
Plaintiff called the defendant for cross-examination and the record discloses the following questions and answers:
On plaintiff's direct examination, he testified as follows:
At the close of plaintiff's case in chief, defendant moved for a directed verdict in his favor, which the court granted for the reason ' that the evidence introduced by the plaintiff, including the cross-examination of the defendant, is insufficient as a matter of law to show any negligence on the defendant's part.'
Judgment in defendant's favor followed, and plaintiff's motion for a new trial was overruled....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Foster
...42, 188 P.2d 1006, 193 P.2d 850 (1948); Sibley v. City Service Transit Co., 1 N.J.Super. 199, 63 A.2d 708 (1949); Manker v. Shaffer, 161 Ohio St. 285, 118 N.E.2d 641 (1954); Threadgill v. Anderson, 303 P.2d 297 (Okl.1956); Kotal v. Goldberg, 375 Pa. 397, 100 A.2d 630 (1953). An exhaustive a......
-
Hall v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...doctrine (Scovanner v. Toelke, 119 Ohio St. 256, 163 N.E. 493; Weller v. Worstall, 129 Ohio St. 596, 196 N.E. 637; and Manker v. Shaffer, 161 Ohio St. 285, 118 N.E.2d 641), drove it upon the track in front of the approaching train and Upon this state of the case, in the absence of evidence,......
-
Ellis v. Henderson
...a mere licensee. See, however, Boggs v. Plybon, 157 Va. 30, 160 S.E. 77; Jones v. Nugent, 164 Va. 378, 180 S.E. 161; Manker v. Shaffer, 161 Ohio St. 285, 118 N.E.2d 641; Weller v. Worstall, 129 Ohio St. 596, 196 N.E. We are of opinion that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should not be app......
-
Heyduck v. Elder & Johnston Co.
...and control of the elevator at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court held the doctrine applicable in the case of Manker v. Shaffer, 161 Ohio St. 285, 118 N.E.2d 641, wherein the court 'Where a motor vehicle and the operation thereof are exclusively within the control of the driver, an......