assured clear distance rule

• Parm v. Ramsey, (Ohio 2005)

Two issue rule; collision; general verdict in multi-claim case; assured clear distance ahead; statute; negligence; proximate cause. A party may not attack jury instructions on sudden emergency, unavoidable accident and comparative negligence when they cannot demonstrate they were prejudiced by the instructions.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Harry Richard Arrasmith, Norma Arrasmith, Robert Brewer, Administrator of the Estate of Paul Gorman, Deceased, Albert Butts and Thomas Butts, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. the Pennsylvania Railroad Co., Defendant-Appellee., 410 F.2d 1311 (6th Cir. 1969)

... as a matter of law, where it is quite clear what the truth is and no genuine issue of fact remmains for trial. The purpose of the rule is not to cut litigants off from the right to tria... have seen on the night in question at a distance of 50 feet with his headlights on low beam. As we ...Ohio has also, of course, enacted an assured clear distance rule by statute. The statute reads ...

• Federal Circuits

• Wallace v. Hipp, (Ohio 2012)

Trial court properly granted summary judgment where pedestrian was not in crosswalk, failed to yield right of way to vehicle which was lawfully traveling on the roadway and no evidence presented that driver saw the pedestrian or should have been aware of any hazard.

... that appellee did not  violate the assured clear distance statute, R.C. 4511.21.  {¶ 7} ...(A) and (E) have been reconciled into the rule that a driver  need not look for pedestrians or ...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Vargo v. Coslet, (3rd Cir. 2005)

... the District Court's denial of Appellant's Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial for abuse of discretion.... 3.18, was an abuse of discretion.1 It is clear that Pennsylvania state law governs all issues of ... concerned about the application of the assured clear distance rule, it should have charged on the...

• Federal Circuits

• Crosby v. Radenko, (Ohio 2011)

Trial court erred when, consistent with our holding in Didier v. Johns (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 746, the court applied the doctrine of intervening/superseding cause to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for personal injuries and property loss arising from a collision of motor vehicles, on findings that the Plaintiff’s negligence per se in violating the assured clear distance statute, and the lack of any intervening negligence on the part of other drivers involved in the episode, prevents a finding that the Defendant’s prior alleged negligence was also a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and losses, when reasonable minds could conclude that the concurrent negligences of Plaintiff and Defendant were each a proximate cause, requiring a jury determinati...

... court granted that motion, relying  on the rule of intervening/superseding negligence we applied i...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Mitchell v. Kuchar, (Ohio 2005)

ASSURED CLEAR DISTANCE AHEAD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT

... 4511.21, Ohio's assured clear distance ahead rule, and was therefore . - 2 -. negligent per se. Ho...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Diperna v. Sartin, (Ohio 2008)

Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; new trial; right-of-way at through-highways; negligence per se; assured clear distance.

... DiPerna violated the assured clear distance rule under R.C. 4511.21(A). A person violates the assu...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Rodney Kiemele; Lillian Kiemele, Plaintiffs--Appellants v. Soo Line Railroad Company, Defendant--Appellee, 93 F.3d 472 (8th Cir. 1996)

...Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a mova... would enable him to stop within the "assured clear distance ahead." Under North Dakota law, a d...

• Federal Circuits

• Zieger v. Burchwell, (Ohio 2010)

Negligence, pedestrian, right-of-way, summary judgment, collision, implied crosswalk, unmarked crosswalk, assured clear distance ahead.

... by affidavit or as otherwise provided in the rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there ...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Robert T. Parker, Administrator of the Estate of Joseph M. Gossner, Deceased v. Reading Company, Appellant., 363 F.2d 608 (3rd Cir. 1966)

... law under the Pennsylvania doctrine of "assured clear distance". A Pennsylvania statute, codifyingg an earlier judge made rule,1 expressly provides that "no person shall drive a...

• Federal Circuits