Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Cramer

Ohio Circuit Courts

Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Cramer

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 576

DecidedJuly 3, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 576 (Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Cramer) 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 Traction Co. v. Cramer, 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 576 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

GIFFEN, J.

The admission in the answer of the defendant “that it is necessary to oil and grease said rails at.curves,” and the testimony of the plaintiff and the police officer as to the location, quantity and character of the grease warranted the inference that the defendant not only put it there, but did it in a negligent manner. These facts being once found no two persons of ordinary intelligence could disagree as to whether a reasonably prudent man, not in the ordinary course of events, but under the surrounding circumstances, would foresee that the acts done would be liable to cause damage or injury. It ceased to be a question of fact for the jury, and became one of law for the court. There wa& no intervening cause alleged or proved that required or rendered pertinent the instruction requested by the defendant after the general charge to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

GIFFEN, J.

The admission in the answer of the defendant “that it is necessary to oil and grease said rails at.curves,” and the testimony of the plaintiff and the police officer as to the location, quantity and character of the grease warranted the inference that the defendant not only put it there, but did it in a negligent manner. These facts being once found no two persons of ordinary intelligence could disagree as to whether a reasonably prudent man, not in the ordinary course of events, but under the surrounding circumstances, would foresee that the acts done would be liable to cause damage or injury. It ceased to be a question of fact for the jury, and became one of law for the court. There wa& no intervening cause alleged or proved that required or rendered pertinent the instruction requested by the defendant after the general charge to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-traction-co-v-cramer-ohiocirct-1909.