Filliken v. Heddesheimer

Ohio Supreme Court

Filliken v. Heddesheimer

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 375

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 27, 1923

DocketNo. 18278

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 375 (Filliken v. Heddesheimer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Filliken v. Heddesheimer, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 375 (Ohio 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

MATTHIAS, J.

1. The general rule that one may not recover for injuries resulting from an act to which he had consented does not apply when the public peace or the life of a participant in the wrongful act is involved.

2. An action to recover damages from one who performed an illegal operation to produce an abortion may be maintained by the administrator of a woman whose death resulted from Such wrongful act, even though she consented thereto. (Barholt v. Wright, 45 Ohio St. 177, approved and followed.)

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Day and Allen, JJ., concur. Wanamaker, J., not participating.

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

MATTHIAS, J.

1. The general rule that one may not recover for injuries resulting from an act to which he had consented does not apply when the public peace or the life of a participant in the wrongful act is involved.

2. An action to recover damages from one who performed an illegal operation to produce an abortion may be maintained by the administrator of a woman whose death resulted from Such wrongful act, even though she consented thereto. (Barholt v. Wright, 45 Ohio St. 177, approved and followed.)

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Day and Allen, JJ., concur. Wanamaker, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/filliken-v-heddesheimer-ohio-1923.