Redis v. Lynch, 35685
| Decision Date | 10 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 35685,35685 |
| Citation | 169 Ohio St. 305,159 N.E.2d 597 |
| Parties | , 8 O.O.2d 310 REDIS, a Minor, Appellant, v. LYNCH, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
W. O. Chappell, Barnesville, and Edmund L. Matz, Bellaire, for appellant.
Thomas L. Tribbie and DeSelm & Moore, Cambridge, for appellee.
The only question to be determined is whether the demurrer to plaintiff's second amended petition was properly sustained.
The petition alleges that the defendant undertook and agreed to take plaintiff and three other persons from a park in Barnesville to their respective homes in Barnesville as passengers in his automobile; and that he invited the other girl to drive his automobile with plaintiff as a passenger in the front seat and the defendant (an adult), together with two male passengers (one 21 years old and the other 14), in the rear seat.
The petition alleges further:
'That the * * * [driver] to the absolute knowledge of the defendant was unskilled in the operation of an automobile, had no experience in the operation of an automobile, did not understand or know the power of said automobile and did not have a license to drive an automobile on the public highways of Ohio. * * *
'That against the protest and objection of the plaintiff, defendant directed said automobile so operated by said * * * [driver] with the passengers therein as above set forth to proceed' in a different direction from that to the home of plaintiff, 'that it became apparent to the defendant while proceeding on said highways that said * * * [driver] was unfamiliar with the controls and operations of said automobile and on two occasions a collision was narrowly averted and that the defendant well knew that if said automobile proceeded with said * * * [driver] in control thereof that in all probability damage and injury would occur to plaintiff and to the other passengers in said automobile, but notwithstanding said knowledge persisted in permitting the said * * * [driver] to continue operating said automobile and urging her to greater speed, over the protest and against the repeated objection of plaintiff.'
The petition then alleges that while the girl driver 'was driving and operating said automobile at a speed of more than 90 mph and while rounding a curve on said highway, said automobile went out of control and into a bridge abutment * * * causing said automobile to catapult said bridge abutment into said creek as a direct result of which plaintiff sustained' certain specified injuries.
The petition alleges further that plaintiff's 'injuries and damages were directly and proximately the result of the willful and wanton misconduct of the defendant in committing [sic] the control and management of said * * * [driver] well knowing that said minor was unskilled in the driving and operation of an automobile, had no experience in the operation of a highpowered automobile * * * and well knowing, in the light of the actions of said driver while proceeding from Barnesville to the place of the collision * * * that in all probability damage and injury would occur to the passengers of said automobile while so being operated by the said * * * [driver].'
The petition alleges further that the defendant was present in the automobile at all times and knew that the driver was unable to properly operate the automobile and was unfamiliar with its controls.
The petition concludes, 'that by reason of the willful and wanton misconduct on the part of the defendant' plaintiff was damaged in a specified amount, for which she seeks judgment.
Although it is noted that this second amended petition was not signed or verified, no attack was made upon it for that reason in either of the lower courts, nor was the matter considered. Accordingly, it will not be considered here.
Paragraph one of the syllabus in the case of Lombardo v. De Shance, 167 Ohio St. 431, 149 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stiltner v. Bahner
...* * * hospitality,' that will benefit the guest. Lombardo v. DeShance, supra (167 Ohio St. 431, 149 N.E.2d 914); Redis v. Lynch (1959), 169 Ohio St. 305, 159 N.E.2d 597. Thus, in Lombardo, it is '* * * Obviously, one who is kidnapped or forced against his will to ride in an automobile is no......
-
Senechal v. Bauman
...Ogletree, 41 Ga.App. 4, 152 S.E. 116 (1929), and Anderson v. Williams, 95 Ga.App. 684, 98 S.E.2d 579 (1957)), Ohio (Redis v. Lynch, 169 Ohio St. 305, 159 N.E.2d 597 (1959)), and Florida (Andrews v. Kirk, 106 So.2d 110 (Fa.App., 1958)) have specifically decided that if the facts were that th......
-
Campbell v. Marquis
...St. 431, 149 N.E.2d 914, 66 A.L.R.2d 1313; Lisner, a Minor, v. Faust, 168 Ohio St. 346, 155 N.E.2d 59; and Redis, a Minor, v. Lynch, 169 Ohio St. 305, 307, 159 N.E.2d 597. The following recent cases of courts inferior to the Supreme Court are cited: Sprenger v. Braker, 71 Ohio App. 349, 49 ......
-
Thomas v. Herron
...extended hospitality or a benefit to the rider. See Stiltner v. Bahner (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 216, 227 N.E.2d 192; Redis v. Lynch (1959), 169 Ohio St. 305, 159 N.E.2d 597, and Lombardo v. De Shance, supra, 167 Ohio St. 431, 149 N.E.2d 914. In this case, Arden had relieved Nancy of the burden......