C., H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Shroder

Hamilton Circuit Court

C., H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Shroder

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 208

DecidedJanuary 15, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 208 (C., H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Shroder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C., H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Shroder, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 208 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Swing, J.

We think the judgment in this case should be affirmed, on the ground that there was evidence sufficient before the jury to authorize it in finding that the railway company could have avoided the accident if proper care had been used, even after the street railway car had been placed in its perilous position. And we think the jury had a right to find that the street railway company was not negligent in going on the track of the C., H. & D. R’y Co.

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

Swing, J.

We think the judgment in this case should be affirmed, on the ground that there was evidence sufficient before the jury to authorize it in finding that the railway company could have avoided the accident if proper care had been used, even after the street railway car had been placed in its perilous position. And we think the jury had a right to find that the street railway company was not negligent in going on the track of the C., H. & D. R’y Co.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-h-d-ry-co-v-shroder-ohcircthamilton-1898.