Case Name: DEVOU v. GUETHLEIN
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-06-12
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 612
Docket Number: No. 18648
Parties: DEVOU v. GUETHLEIN
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 612–612

Head Matter:
No. 627
DEVOU v. GUETHLEIN
No. 18648.
Supreme Court
Pending on motion of Devou to order Hamilton Appeals to certify;
docketed June 12, 1924.
2 Abs. 420.
829. NEGLIGENCE — Alighting from street car and crossing street other than at a designated crossing.
Attorneys — Jackson & Woodward, for Devou; John McCaslin and Geo. Dornette, for Guth-lein; all of Cincinnati.

Opinion:
Devou in his motion to certify, states his case, substantially as follows:
1. The case involves the question, whether or not a passenger alighting from a street car at a point in the middle of the square is or is not guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law, by walking to the sidewalk through dense traffic, without exercising her senses or any of her faculties for her own protection.
2. Whether such a pedestrian is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, by crossing a street at a point other than a designated crossing and in violation of a city ordinance, which provides that pedestrians shall not cross streets or highways except at regularly designated crossings, and then at right angles only.
3. Whether a pedestrian crossing a street through dense traffic is not guilty of contributory negligence as a . matter ' of law, which will defeat her recovery by failing to look or listen, or exercise any of her faculties for her own protection.
4. Whether or not the trial court erroneously excluded from the consideration of the jury a city ordinance, under the circumstances of this case and other errors of the trial court.
Note: See also similar case of Benomini v. Bussman, OS. Pend. 2 Abs. 562.