City of Akron v. Butler

Ohio Supreme Court

City of Akron v. Butler

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 468

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1923·No. No. 17702·Published

Opinion

ROBINSON, J.

Where the plaintiffs in an action against a municipality to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence of a servant of the municipality fails to offer any evidence tending to prove that the servant at the time was engaged in the performance of a proprietary function of the mmu-nicipality, as distniguished from a governmental function delegated by the sovereign state, a motion to direct a verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case should be sustained.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

Marshall, C. J., Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. Wanamaker and Day, JJ., dissent.

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

ROBINSON, J.

Where the plaintiffs in an action against a municipality to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence of a servant of the municipality fails to offer any evidence tending to prove that the servant at the time was engaged in the performance of a proprietary function of the mmu-nicipality, as distniguished from a governmental function delegated by the sovereign state, a motion to direct a verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case should be sustained.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

Marshall, C. J., Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. Wanamaker and Day, JJ., dissent.

City of Akron v. Butler, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 468 (Ohio 1923).

Pincite

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 468 (City of Akron v. Butler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.