Beeler v. Ponting

Ohio Supreme Court

Beeler v. Ponting

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 316

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 11, 1927

DocketNo. 20012

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 316 (Beeler v. Ponting) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beeler v. Ponting, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 316 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

MARSHALL, C. J.

Where the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence in the trial of a negligence suit are such as would ordinarily call for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur it is the duty of the trial court to charge upon that subject but the omission to do so in the absence of a request of counsel for an instruction upon that subject is not reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

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

MARSHALL, C. J.

Where the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence in the trial of a negligence suit are such as would ordinarily call for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur it is the duty of the trial court to charge upon that subject but the omission to do so in the absence of a request of counsel for an instruction upon that subject is not reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beeler-v-ponting-ohio-1927.