Cincinnati Trac. Co. v. Frank

Ohio Circuit Courts

Cincinnati Trac. Co. v. Frank

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 585

DecidedApril 15, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 585 (Cincinnati Trac. Co. v. Frank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cincinnati Trac. Co. v. Frank, 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 585 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, J.

The evidence in this case shows that defendant in error was, at the- time of the accident, driving south on Reading road in Cincinnati in a market wagon. It was snowing and a sweeper propelled by electricity and equipped with large, cylindrical, revolving rattan brushes was being operated by defendant company in removing snow from its tracks located on said street. As plaintiff approached, the motorman, on her account, stopped the sweeper and called for her to come on. Whether she signalled for him to stop or he stopped of his own volition is immaterial. It is evident that from some act of hers or the horse which she was driving, he saw fit to stop out of consideration for her safety. The sweepers of this type are only used in time of snow, make a loud, unusual noise, scatter the snow through the air and are likely to frighten horses.

Two eye-witnesses testify that after waiting until Mrs. Frank drove 150 or 200 feet, and when her horse was just opposite the sweeper, it was started, causing the horse to run away. She was thrown out of the wagon and injured.

The question of negligence was one of fact and was submitted to the jury, whose verdict was for defendant in error.

We can not say .that the verdict was not sustained by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.

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

JONES, J.

The evidence in this case shows that defendant in error was, at the- time of the accident, driving south on Reading road in Cincinnati in a market wagon. It was snowing and a sweeper propelled by electricity and equipped with large, cylindrical, revolving rattan brushes was being operated by defendant company in removing snow from its tracks located on said street. As plaintiff approached, the motorman, on her account, stopped the sweeper and called for her to come on. Whether she signalled for him to stop or he stopped of his own volition is immaterial. It is evident that from some act of hers or the horse which she was driving, he saw fit to stop out of consideration for her safety. The sweepers of this type are only used in time of snow, make a loud, unusual noise, scatter the snow through the air and are likely to frighten horses.

Two eye-witnesses testify that after waiting until Mrs. Frank drove 150 or 200 feet, and when her horse was just opposite the sweeper, it was started, causing the horse to run away. She was thrown out of the wagon and injured.

The question of negligence was one of fact and was submitted to the jury, whose verdict was for defendant in error.

We can not say .that the verdict was not sustained by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-trac-co-v-frank-ohiocirct-1911.