Edmondson v. Howard's Cleaners

177 Ohio St. (N.S.) 63

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in charging on contributory negligence. Under the facts of this case, contributory negligence was a question of fact for determination by the jury.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on authority of Grass v. Ake, Exr., 154 Ohio St., 84. See, also, Horwitz v. Eurove, 129 Ohio St., 8.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur. Matthias, J., dissents.