Schmidy v. City Ice & Fuel Co.

• Decision Date: 10 January 1939
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Parties: SCHMIDY v. CITY ICE & FUEL CO.

60 Ohio App. 29
19 N.E.2d 514

SCHMIDY
v.
CITY ICE & FUEL CO.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.

Jan. 10, 1939.

Action by one Schmidt against the City Ice & Fuel Company for injuries sustained while riding as a guest in an automobile involved in an intersectional collision with defendant's truck. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals. -[Editorial Statement].

Reversed and remanded.

(Ed. Note.-For other definitions of ‘Intersect; Intersection,’ see Words & Phrases.)

[19 N.E.2d 515]

Marble & Vordenberg, of Cincinnati, for appellant.

Lawrence R. Swartz, of Cincinnati, for appellee.

ROSS, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal on questions of law from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

The truck of the appellant and the automobile of the appellee collided at the intersection of Liberty and Central Parkway in the city of Cincinnati on June 27, 1935, at about 4:45 p. m.

A guest rider in the automobile was injured and instituted the present action against the appellant, owner of the truck.

The evidence was conflicting as to whether either or both drivers of the vehicles involved entered the intersection upon a green of ‘go’ light.

This intersection (and it is an intersection of two streets within the meaning of both municipal and state laws) is similar to many in the city of Cincinnati. Central Parkway is divided into two lanes of traffic by a strip of park running along the center of the boulevard. The traffic lights are the same as for any ordinary street intersection, being located at the four corners of the intersection. The ordinary rules, therefore, applicable to any street intersection equipped with traffic lights are applicable and are unchanged by the presence of the strip of park running along the center of the boulevard. The park strip terminates at Liberty street. There is a small circular safety platform directly opposite the park strip on the north side of Liberty street.

We find no difficulty in holding adversely to the claims of the appellant upon the assignment of errors involving the weight of the evidence and excessive recovery.

A number of special instructions offered by appellant were refused. If these stated correct principles of law, applicable to the facts in the case, and were not in any way mere iteration of other special charges the court was required to give them, and its refusal so to do constituted error prejudicial to the rights of the appellant, requiring a reversal of the judgment of the trial court...