 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ciesielczyk v. Ogg8/20/2001
t further argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that appellee was comparatively negligent since appellee, after observing appellant's vehicle closing in, could have sped up to put more distance between the two vehicles. Appellant further contends that since appellee suddenly stopped, appellant had insufficient time, due to the rainy condition of the road, to avoid the collision and that, therefore, appellee was negligent. However, under 4511.21(A), the assured clear distance statute, a driver, such as appellant, has a duty to operate his vehicle at such a speed so as to stop within the assured clear distance ahead regardless of the fact that the driver in front of him may suddenly stop. See Cox, supra. and Coronet Ins. Co. v. Richards (1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 578.
In contrast, appellee clearly had no duty under Ohio law to speed up so that appellant would not hit him. In short, we find there was sufficient competent and credible evidence from which the trial court could conclude that appellee was not negligent and that, therefore, appellant's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Appellant's first and second assignments of error are, therefore, overruled.
III.
Appellant, in his third assignment of error, argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to reconsider. Appellant, on November 13, 2000, had filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the trial court, in its October 27, 2000, Judgment Entry, misrepresented appellant's testimony regarding whether appellant had seen appellee's brake lights and turn signals prior to the accident. However, the trial court, pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed the next day, overruled appellant's motion. As is stated above, the trial court clearly misstated appellant's trial testimony. However, we find that the trial court's denial of appellant's Motion for Reconsideration was harmless. In short, as is set forth above, there was competent and credible evidence in the record supporting the trial court's determination that appellee was not negligent.
Appellant's third assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Canton Municipal Court is affirmed.
Wise, J. and Boggins, concur
|