Ohio Supreme Court, 1923

Loomis v. Toledo Railways & Light Co.

Loomis v. Toledo Railways & Light Co.
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 1, 1923 · Allen, Day, Jones, Marshall, Matthias, Robinson, Wanamaker
1 Ohio Law. Abs. 261
Loomis v. Toledo Railways & Light Co.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

JONES, J.

1. A presumption of negligence arises from proof of the falling) of poles and electric wires upon the plaintiff’s automobile in a city street. The maxim, res ipsa loquitor, applies, requiring an explanation of the cause from the defendant. (Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Holzenkamp, 74 Ohio St., 379, approved.)

2. But where the proof raises a probability that such falling poles and! wires were caused by a vis major, the presumption of negligence does not arise. In such case the plaintiff must sustain his specific allegations of negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Robinson, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur. Marshall, C. J., and Allen, J., concur in the judgment. Wanamaker, J., dissents.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.