EISENHUTH v. MONEYHON

No. 33570.

161 Ohio St. 367 (1954)

EISENHUTH, APPELLEE, v. MONEYHON, APPELLANT.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided May 5, 1954.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Messrs. Long & Bloom, and Mr. Robert V. Bagby, for appellee.

Messrs. Benoy & Sebastian, for appellant.


HART, J.

The principal question presented is: Does Section 6307-38, General Code (Section 4511.39, Revised Code), prescribe a specific requirement, the violation of which constitutes negligence per se, and did the court err in its charge with respect to the duties of the defendant as defined by subdivision (b) of such section?

Defendant's chief claim of error is that the trial court erred in its charge to the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases