Brinkman v. Cuyahoga Lumber Co.

Cuyahoga Circuit Court

Brinkman v. Cuyahoga Lumber Co.

26 Ohio C.C. Dec. 484, 16 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 537, 1905 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 355

DecidedMay 29, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Ohio C.C. Dec. 484 (Brinkman v. Cuyahoga Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brinkman v. Cuyahoga Lumber Co., 26 Ohio C.C. Dec. 484, 16 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 537, 1905 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 355 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRY, J.

The action below was for damages for personal injuries, and the judgment of the court of common pleas must be reversed for error in the charge as follows: “It is his (the plaintiff’s) business to show that the injury which he sustained was because of the negligence of the defendant, or of his teamster, and that it was not because of his own negligence.” And again.- “The first thing that you will have to determine, before you can find a verdict for the plaintiff, is that he was injured through the negligence of the defendant company by its teamster, and that he was not to blame himself, and that his own negligence did not contribute to his injury.”

The burden of disproving contributory negligence was thus cast upon the plaintiff where it does not ordinarily belong. There was nothing in this ease to take it out of the ordinary rule, nor is there anything else in the charge curative of the .error thus committed.

Beversed and remanded.

Marvin and Winch, JJ., concur.

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

HENRY, J.

The action below was for damages for personal injuries, and the judgment of the court of common pleas must be reversed for error in the charge as follows: “It is his (the plaintiff’s) business to show that the injury which he sustained was because of the negligence of the defendant, or of his teamster, and that it was not because of his own negligence.” And again.- “The first thing that you will have to determine, before you can find a verdict for the plaintiff, is that he was injured through the negligence of the defendant company by its teamster, and that he was not to blame himself, and that his own negligence did not contribute to his injury.”

The burden of disproving contributory negligence was thus cast upon the plaintiff where it does not ordinarily belong. There was nothing in this ease to take it out of the ordinary rule, nor is there anything else in the charge curative of the .error thus committed.

Beversed and remanded.

Marvin and Winch, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Ohio C.C. Dec. 484, 16 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 537, 1905 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brinkman-v-cuyahoga-lumber-co-ohcirctcuyahoga-1905.