Citation Numbers: 8 N.E.2d 446, 55 Ohio App. 31, 21 Ohio Law. Abs. 234
Judges: ROSS, P.J.
Filed Date: 1/6/1936
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Were it not for the pronouncement of the Ohio rule relating to trucking companies, announced in Leonard v. Kreider,
While there is some doubt in my mind as to whether the Supreme Court in the Leonard case intended to do anything other than to construe the statute, the court did make the pronouncement that to make the railroad rule applicable to trucking companies required legislative action. There are many respectable authorities *Page 39 tending to show that the rule as to non-delegation of duties applies to all common carriers.
In the case of Coviello v. Industrial Commission,
In mentioning that the matter is of legislative policy, the court seems to overlook the fact that the question of respondeatsuperior is a pronouncement of law by the court and not legislative. The matter before us is simply one phase of the construction of respondeat superior, and why this should be singled out as a matter of legislative policy, I do not understand.
I shall not go into a lengthy discussion of my views on this subject, for the reason that I believe the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Ohio in the Leonard case is controlling under the rule of judicial subordination. *Page 40