B. & O. R'y Co. v. Norcross Marble Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

B. & O. R'y Co. v. Norcross Marble Co.

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 104

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 19, 1923

DocketNo. 4664

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 104 (B. & O. R'y Co. v. Norcross Marble Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

B. & O. R'y Co. v. Norcross Marble Co., 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 104 (Ohio Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Epitomized Opinion

First Publication of this Opinion

The Norcross Company recovered a judgment in the Cleveland Municipal Court for damages done to a building on its property by a car operated by the R. R. Co., to reverse which this case comes into this court by petition in error.

The Court of Appeals, in deciding the case, held that the doctrine of res loquitur applies in this case. When the Marble Company proved that the accident happened in the manner in which it did, the burden was thrown upon the R. R. Co. to explain how the accident happened. This they did by showing that a block of some kind got upon the track and caused the injury, but it would seem more natural, from the condition of the railroad track, that the evidence shows that the block undoubtedly fell from one of their ears that made up the train that injured the building; that is, that when the car was derailed the block slid off of the flat car and got wedged in ‘between the building and the track. The evidence shows that the track was clear, as far as it could be observed, prior to the afternoon of the accident, hence the so-called explanation of the R. R. Co. does not explain the situation and the doctrine of res ipse loquitur applies and the plaintiff would be entitled to recovery, therefore the 'judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Epitomized Opinion

First Publication of this Opinion

The Norcross Company recovered a judgment in the Cleveland Municipal Court for damages done to a building on its property by a car operated by the R. R. Co., to reverse which this case comes into this court by petition in error.

The Court of Appeals, in deciding the case, held that the doctrine of res loquitur applies in this case. When the Marble Company proved that the accident happened in the manner in which it did, the burden was thrown upon the R. R. Co. to explain how the accident happened. This they did by showing that a block of some kind got upon the track and caused the injury, but it would seem more natural, from the condition of the railroad track, that the evidence shows that the block undoubtedly fell from one of their ears that made up the train that injured the building; that is, that when the car was derailed the block slid off of the flat car and got wedged in ‘between the building and the track. The evidence shows that the track was clear, as far as it could be observed, prior to the afternoon of the accident, hence the so-called explanation of the R. R. Co. does not explain the situation and the doctrine of res ipse loquitur applies and the plaintiff would be entitled to recovery, therefore the 'judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-o-ry-co-v-norcross-marble-co-ohioctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack