Case ID: ohio-law-abs_69/html/0406-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per CURIAM: SKEEL, J,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARASCHKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLEVELAND (City), Defendant-Appellee.
    Ohio Appeals, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.
    No. 22849.
    Decided October 26, 1953.
    M. D. Barrisch, Cleveland, for plaintiff-appellant.
    J. H. Crowley, Law Director, J. H. Urbancik, Asst. Law Director, for defendant-appellee.
   OPINION

Per CURIAM:

Briefly stated, the evidence set forth in a narrative bill of exceptions shows that the plaintiff was operating an automobile after dark on Rocky River Drive in the City of Cleveland, at approximately thirty miles per hour; that her headlights were on and were functioning properly; that the roadway was wet; that suddenly she discerned something in the path of her car that appeared to be an obstacle; that she immediately applied the brakes of her car; that her brakes were in good working order; that the obstacle was a pile of material which had been dug from the roadway about two feet high and one lane wide and the same material as the roadway; that there was no barricade or other deviee to warn drivers of the danger; that there were two lanterns or flares in front of the obstacle but that neither was lit. This, together with all the evidence, in our opinion presents an issue of fact as to whether or not the object with which the plaintiff collided was reasonably discernible in time to enable her to bring her car to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead. On this question reasonable minds could reasonably come to different conclusions.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed for error of law in directing a verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case and the cause is remanded for further proceedings according to law. Exc. Order see journal.

HURD, PJ, KOVACHY, J, concur.

SKEEL, J,

dissents for the reason that plaintiff’s evidence discloses that there was a pile of material two feet high across the entire lane in which she was travelling, which material constituted a substantial object which the plaintiff should have observed and discerned in the exercise of ordinary care, in time to bring her vehicle to a stop.