The prima-facie speed limitations set forth in section 4511.21 of the Revised Code do not apply to emergency vehicles or public safety vehicles when they are responding to emergency calls and are equipped with and displaying at least one flashing, rotating, or oscillating light visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of five hundred feet to the front of the vehicle and when the drivers thereof sound audible signals by bell, siren, or exhaust whistle. This section does not relieve the driver of an emergency vehicle or public safety vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the street or highway.
York v. Ohio State High. Patrol, 573 N.E.2d 1063 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 4דOur inquiry should begin with R.C. 4511.24, which requires emergency and public safety vehicles, when responding to emergency calls, “to drive with due regard for the safety of all.”
Hoffman v. Gallia Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 2017 Ohio 9192 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3דNonetheless, Ohio law provides that vehicles on such emergency runs may, with lights activated and with due regard for the safety of others, exceed the posted speed limit ( R.C. 4511.24 ) and proceed through red lights or stop signals ( R.”
Baum v. Ohio State High. Patrol, 650 N.E.2d 1347 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 5דSee R.C. 4511.24. Thus, liability cannot be determined by “the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties.”
Glenn v. Columbus, 2016 Ohio 7011 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Nonetheless, Ohio law provides that vehicles on such emergency runs may, with lights activated and with due regard for the safety of others, exceed the posted speed limit (R.C. 4511.24) and proceed through red lights or stop signals (R.”
Baum v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 1995 Ohio 155 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 5דSee R.C. 4511.24. Thus, liability cannot be determined by "the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties.”
Burgard v. EFF, 205 N.E.2d 400 (Ohio Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 2ד21, Revised Code, by virtue of the operation of Section 4511.24, Revised Code. However, these limitations are not absolute with respect to speed in and of itself, and the violation thereof does not constitute negligence as a matter of law.”
Vill. of Centerville v. Benbow, 143 N.E.2d 165 (Ohio Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 10דThe claim is made that Section 4511.24, Revised Code, excludes vehicles on emergency calls from the rules prescribed in Section 4511.”
Semple v. Hope, 474 N.E.2d 314 (Ohio 1984). “Thus, it cannot be said that appellee violated either R.C. 4511.24 or 4511.29. With respect to R.”
Vill. of Whitehall v. Cole, 149 N.E.2d 261 (Ohio Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 8ד21 of the Revised Code, dealing with speed and assured-clear-distance-ahead requirements, and, in so doing, neglected to explain the exemptions afforded emergency vehicles in Section 4511.24, Revised Code. The defendant urges that Section 4511.”
Corrigan v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., 187 N.E.2d 622 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963). · cites it 2דThe same is true as pertains to the question of the speed of the emergency vehicle, Section 4511.24, Revised Code. The record indicates that the same occurred with respect to the “yield right-of-way” section of the code, Section 4511.”
City of Worthington v. O'Dea, 185 N.E.2d 323 (Ohio Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 2דSee Sections 4511.24 and 4511.45, Revised Code.”
Agnew v. Porter, 247 N.E.2d 487 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2ד21, Revised Code, on an emergency call without sounding “audible signals by bell, siren, or exhaust whistle” as required by Section 4511.24, Revised Code. We see no conflict between that case and the case at bar.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.