G. A. Boeckling Co. v. Slattery

160 N.E. 99, 26 Ohio App. 261, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 339, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 538
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 21, 1927
Docket234
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 160 N.E. 99 (G. A. Boeckling Co. v. Slattery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
G. A. Boeckling Co. v. Slattery, 160 N.E. 99, 26 Ohio App. 261, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 339, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 538 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

May Slattery brought an action in the Erie Common Pleas against the G. A. Boeckling Co. to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while she was a visitor upon the pleasure resort grounds of Boeckling by reason of being hit by a baseball which was thrown by some unknown person, at a concession operated by one E. D. Forbes.

Boeckling had leased to Forbes a concession which consisted of a ball throwing device. There were no protecting screens on the sides of same, the space outside of the portion leased remaining under the control of Boeck-ling. Upon trial of the case in the court below, a verdict of $5000 was returned for Slat-tery and this is a proceeding in error to reverse the lower court.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. Slattery came upon the grounds by invitation, and at the time of the injury the grounds were under the control of Boeckling who owed her the duty of ordinary care to render the premises reasonably safe for invitees. Baseball Co. v. Eno, 112 OS. 175.

2. The case was properly one in which the question of the negligence of the company, proximate cause, and contributory negligence were for the jury, the verdict was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and court below submitted the issues to the jury in a charge which was free from prejudicial error.

3. The verdict is not excessive a s Slattery has an injury of a permanent nature and was forced to give up remunerative employment.

Judgment affirmed.

(Richards & Lloyd, JJ., concur.)

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

Related

Wells v. Palm Beach Kennel Club
35 So. 2d 720 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1948)
Henry v. Publix Theatres Corp.
25 S.W.2d 695 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 N.E. 99, 26 Ohio App. 261, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 339, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-a-boeckling-co-v-slattery-ohioctapp-1927.