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

Hamilton Circuit Court

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

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 208

Hamilton Circuit Court·Decided January 15, 1898·Published

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.

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

Pincite

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 208 (C., H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Shroder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.