City of Cincinnati v. Klein

Ohio Circuit Courts

City of Cincinnati v. Klein

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 296, 1907 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 280

DecidedJune 22, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 296 (City of Cincinnati v. Klein) 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

City of Cincinnati v. Klein, 10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 296, 1907 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 280 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

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 verd^t 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, 18 Cir. Ct., 50; Leipsic v. Gerdeman, 68 O. S., 1). 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.

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

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 verd^t 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, 18 Cir. Ct., 50; Leipsic v. Gerdeman, 68 O. S., 1). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 296, 1907 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-cincinnati-v-klein-ohiocirct-1907.