Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baker, 84-648
Decision Date | 31 December 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 84-648,84-648 |
Citation | 473 N.E.2d 827,15 Ohio St.3d 316,15 OBR 444 |
Parties | , 22 Ed. Law Rep. 901, 15 O.B.R. 444 MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. BAKER, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Brown, Bemiller, Murray & McIntyre and William T. McIntyre, Mansfield, for appellant.
William C. Ailes, Columbus, for appellee.
Appellant contends that the trial court properly adjudicated the issue of proximate causation, even though such an issue is usually a question of fact for the jury, because the appellee school bus driver violated the specific requirements of Ohio Adm.Code 3301-83-06, which resulted in the type of accident that the provisions are designed to avoid.
Appellee argues that there are material issues of fact upon which reasonable minds could differ, and that, therefore, the issues of proximate causation should have been left to the jury to determine.
In affirming the court of appeal's reversal of the case sub judice, we find that this action is controlled by our prior pronouncement in the second paragraph of the syllabus in Cascone v. Herb Kay Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 155, 451 N.E.2d 815:
The trial court apparently placed undue weight on the fact that appellee was negligent per se in violating the relevant Ohio Administrative Code provisions. Negligence per se does not equal liability per se. Simply because the law may presume negligence from a person's violation of a statute or rule does not mean that the law presumes that such negligence was the proximate cause of the harm inflicted. See 39 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d (1959) 525-528, Negligence, Section 26. Moreover, the trial court's determination seems to ignore the fact that appellant's insured could also be viewed as negligence per se in violating R.C. 4511.75(A).
In a case such as this, where reasonable minds could differ as to whose acts or omissions constitute the proximate cause of the accident, such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miles v. Kohli & Kaliher Associates, Ltd.
...51 Ohio St.3d 108, 554 N.E.2d 1313 (1990); Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989); Merchants Mutual Ins. Co. v. Baker, 15 Ohio St.3d 316, 473 N.E.2d 827 (1984); Cascone v. Herb Kay Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 155, 451 N.E.2d 815 (1983), Ohio law remains somewhat unclear on the r......
-
Graham v. American Cyanamid Co.
...showing that the regulation at issue has a tenable and provable connection to public safety. See, e.g., Merchants Mutual Ins. Co. v. Baker, 15 Ohio St.3d 316, 473 N.E.2d 827, 828 (1984) ("Negligence per se does not equal liability per se. Simply because the law may presume negligence from a......
-
Aycock v. Sandy Valley Church of God, 2008 Ohio 105 (Ohio App. 1/8/2008), 2006 AP 09 0054.
...statute or rule does not presume that such negligence was the proximate cause of the harm inflicted. Merchants Mutual Insurance Company v. Baker (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 316, 473 N.E. 2d 827, citing 39 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d (1959) 525-528, Negligence, Section {¶30} In this case we disagree wi......
-
Westfall v. Lemon
...harm inflicted.' " Barnett v. Combs, 4th Dist. Ross No. 1268, 1986 WL 15209, *3 (Dec. 29, 1986); quoting Merchants Mutual Ins. Co. v. Baker, 15 Ohio St.3d 316, 473 N.E.2d 827 (1984). This is especially applicable when, as here, Appellant can also be viewed as being negligent per se. {¶24} L......