Cincinnati (City) v. Klein

Hamilton Circuit Court

Cincinnati (City) v. Klein

20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 236

DecidedJune 22, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 236 (Cincinnati (City) v. Klein) 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

Cincinnati (City) v. Klein, 20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 236 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, J.

We think there was error at the trial of the above case in that, the court overruled the motion of plaintiff in error to arrest the case from the jury, and to instruct a verdict in its behalf.

There was no evidence of constructive notice to the city of the existence of the defect in the street, actual notice not being claimed. The rule is, “that if the defect is shown to have existed such a length of time that the city authorities, by the exercise of ordinary care, would have known of its existence and could have repaired it, then the city is charged with constructive notice of such defect.” Cincinnati v. Frazer, 9 Circ. Dec. 487 (18 R. 50); Leipsic (Vil.) v. Gerdeman. 68 Ohio St. 1 [67 N. E. Rep. 87]. No such evidence was offered. The' jury could not speculate as to the length of time the defect in question existed from statements of witnesses as to the appearance of the defective place after the accident, and thus establish constructive notice to the city.

Judgment reversed.

Swing and Giffen, JJ., concur.

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

SMITH, J.

We think there was error at the trial of the above case in that, the court overruled the motion of plaintiff in error to arrest the case from the jury, and to instruct a verdict in its behalf.

There was no evidence of constructive notice to the city of the existence of the defect in the street, actual notice not being claimed. The rule is, “that if the defect is shown to have existed such a length of time that the city authorities, by the exercise of ordinary care, would have known of its existence and could have repaired it, then the city is charged with constructive notice of such defect.” Cincinnati v. Frazer, 9 Circ. Dec. 487 (18 R. 50); Leipsic (Vil.) v. Gerdeman. 68 Ohio St. 1 [67 N. E. Rep. 87]. No such evidence was offered. The' jury could not speculate as to the length of time the defect in question existed from statements of witnesses as to the appearance of the defective place after the accident, and thus establish constructive notice to the city.

Judgment reversed.

Swing and Giffen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-city-v-klein-ohcircthamilton-1907.