# Bradley v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc.

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 19, 1950 · 154 Ohio St. 154

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3784221

## Case

- **Full name:** Bradley, an Infant, Appellee, v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc., Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 19, 1950
- **Citations:** 154 Ohio St. 154; 154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 154; 42 Ohio Op. 221; 93 N.E.2d 672; 1950 Ohio LEXIS 398
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Taut
- **Judges:** Stewart, Taut, Weygandt, Matthias, Hart, Turner, Zimmerman, Taft
- **Cited by:** 46 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Bahm v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Rd. Co., 6 Ohio St. 2d 192 (1966).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3784221

## Opinion text

Taut, J.,
concurring. I fully concur in the opinion of the majority except as herein noted.
In my opinion neither special instruction No. 1 nor No. 2, requested by the defendant, represents a correct statement of the law. In both, the court was to instruct the jury that plaintiff could not recover if plaintiff’s “negligence
contributed
to [or in] the slightest degree
to the
proximate
cause
of his injuries.”
It is axiomatic that contributory negligence of a plaintiff will not bar his recovery unless such negligence “directly” or “proximately” caused his injuries. The vice of the language of the above instructions is that it bars recovery if plaintiff’s negligence merely “contributed” to the proximate cause of his injuries. It fails to require that such “contribution” be a direct or proximate contribution. See
McNees
v.
Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.,
152 Ohio St., 269 , 89 N. E.
*174
(2d), 138. The language of these charges should be compared with the language approved in
Chesrown
v.
Bevier,
101 Ohio St., 282 , 128 N. E., 94 (“negligence
directly contributed
in the slightest degree
to the in
juries”), and in
Bartson
v.
Craig,
121 Ohio St., 371 , 169 N. E., 291 (“negligence
directly
* * *
contributed
in the slightest degree
to cause
the injuries”).
While I agree with the interpretation being made of the language of Section 11420-17, General Code, I do not agree that this court should be bound by the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in
Toledo & Wabash Ry. Co.
v.
Goddard,
25 Ind., 185 , as representing the “settled construction” of “a statute * * * adopted from another state.” That case was decided in 1865, many years after similar statutory language interpreted therein and in the instant case had in 1853 become a part of the law of this state. (51 Ohio Laws, 102.) That language, as now contained in Section 11420-17, General Code, provides that the jury in certain instances is “to find upon
particular questions of fact,
to be stated in writing.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3784221. Public record. Not legal advice.