Farmer v. Findlay Street Railway Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Farmer v. Findlay Street Railway Co.

60 Ohio St. (N.S.) 36

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 14, 1899·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

The instruction assumed that the plaintiff having full control of his horses voluntarily drove into [41]*41the danger of which he had knowledge, and from which the injury to the horse resulted. There was, however, evidence of a substantial character tending to show that he did not have full control of his team and did not voluntarily drive upon the exposed track and wire. Whether he did or not should, upon the evidence, have been submitted to the jury.

Judgment of the evrcuit court and court of common pleas reversed.

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

By the Court.

The instruction assumed that the plaintiff having full control of his horses voluntarily drove into [41]*41the danger of which he had knowledge, and from which the injury to the horse resulted. There was, however, evidence of a substantial character tending to show that he did not have full control of his team and did not voluntarily drive upon the exposed track and wire. Whether he did or not should, upon the evidence, have been submitted to the jury.

Judgment of the evrcuit court and court of common pleas reversed.

Farmer v. Findlay Street Railway Co., 60 Ohio St. (N.S.) 36 (Ohio 1899).

Pincite

60 Ohio St. (N.S.) 36 (Farmer v. Findlay Street Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.