
    NEGLIGENCE IN OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE.
    Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County.
    John F. Dieterie, v. Elmer Routzohn.
    Decided, May 6, 1922.
    
      Automobile is Stopped Suddenly and Without Warning — Machine Behind Crashes Into it and Driver is Injured — Situs of Action— Sufficiency of Allegations.
    
    1. An action for damages for injuries, caused by the negligence of the owner of a motor vehicle, should be brought in the county of the plaintiff’s residence at the time of the filing of the petition.
    2. In such a case the petition should contain an allegation as to the county of the plaintiff’s residence at the time of the filing of his petition.
    3. Allegations that while plaintiff was riding on a motor cycle and following the automobile of the defendant, the latter suddenly and without warning brought his machine almost to a dead stop and at the same time swerved to the left so as to block the entire Tight hand side of the road, giving plaintiff no opportunity to change his course and causing him to crash into the machine'of the defendant to his serious injury, states a cause of action and but one cause of action.
   Snediker, J.

This case is before tbe court on a general.demurrer filed by the defendant. This demurrer searches the-record. The petition of the plaintiff recites: “That on October 17th, 1921, he was a resident of Montgomery county, Ohio; that the defendant was on that date the owner of a certain motor vehicle which he was driving along the Shakertown pike in this county; that the plaintiff on that, same date at that same time of day was operating a motorcycle on the same pike, and that by reason of the negligence of the defendant in the operation of his automobile, the plaintiff was thrown from his motorcycle and injured. ’ ’

Section 6308 of the General Code provides:

“An action for injury to a person or property caused by the negligence of the owner of a motor vehicle may be brought by the person injured against such owner in the county where such injured person resides, etc.’

Our interpretation of this section is that the language “may be brought by the person injured against such owner in the county wherein such injured person resides” was intended by the legislature. to mean that the action should be brought in the countv where the injured person resides at the time of bringing such action. The whole purpose of the section was to compel the offending party to answer the complaint of the injured plaintiff in plaintiff’s home county, and not to require one so injured to travel about the state in pursuit of a negligent defendant and prosecute his action at a disadvantage or expense to himself. Both the spirit and the meaning of this act would require that the proper county in which to bring such a case is the county of residence at the time of the commencement of the action. The averment of plaintiff’s petition should be, (if it be true) that on December 6th, 1921, the date of the filing of this action with the clerk' of this court, he was a resident of Montgomery county, Ohio. .

The summons in the ease shows that the defendant was served 'in Miami county by the sheriff of that county. This is a jurisdictional section and may not be extended beyond its specific terms. All courts should exercise their jurisdiction in conformity with a strict construction of the law conferring such jurisdiction ; and, while by the averments of his petition, this plaintiff may state out a good cause of action in order that the court of common pleas of this county may take it up for adjudication, it is necessary that his record should show the fact of residence in this county at the time of the bringing of the action.

So much as to the place where the action should be brought. We find among the filings a motion filed by the defendant to require the plaintiff to separately sta'te and number his causes of action as well as this demurrer which we are considering. So that, since this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter; that is, over a cause of action and of a relief of the character which is here sought, we may say that the defendant has so far entered his appearance as to give the court the right to proceed. The averments of the petition charge that the defendant whom the plaintiff was following on his motorcycle along the pike,

‘ ‘ recklessly, negligently and wantonly, without keeping a proper lookout, without giving a proper or timely warning, and without giving any warning so as to endanger the life and limbs of the plaintiff, suddenly put on the brakes of the automobile, greatly slackening the speed thereof and brought said motor vehicle almost to a standstill’, and carelessly, negligently, recklessly and wantonly, contrary to the general and usual rules observed on the public roads and highways, without keeping a proper lookout and without giving a proper or timely warning, and without giving any warning, turned to the left side of said Shakertown pike, contiary to the general and usual rules-observed on public roads or highways, and headed his motor vehicle to the south and in so doing, blocked the entire southern right-hand, side of the pike, so that plaintiff had no opportunity of changing the course of his motorcycle, and crashed into the automobile driven by the defendant. ’ ’

Our opinion is that this states a cause of action and but one cause of action.

The motion and the demurrer are both overruled.  