G.A. Boeckling Co. v. Alexander

Ohio Court of Appeals

G.A. Boeckling Co. v. Alexander

182 N.E. 47, 42 Ohio App. 305, 12 Ohio Law. Abs. 4, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 435

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 15, 1932

DocketNo 381

StatusPublished

This text of 182 N.E. 47 (G.A. Boeckling Co. v. Alexander) 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. Alexander, 182 N.E. 47, 42 Ohio App. 305, 12 Ohio Law. Abs. 4, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 435 (Ohio Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

*5 LLOYD, J.

Although she says she did not notice it, nevertheless the fact is that there was a lighted 100 watt incandescent bulb directly above the step. There is no evidence tending to show that the floor of the aisle was improperly laid or that the step had been negligently constructed or was in any way defective. Counsel for plaintiff in their brief say “it is true that there was a light directly above this step, but its rays tended to divert her attention from the danger below to the brightness above. No warning of any nature whatsoever was given to the plaintiff — the defendant took no precautions to safeguard her life and limb except through the installation of this misleading and deceiving electric light — and she was left unknowing to learn for the first time of the perilous condition through the sorrow of her injuries.” In her petition plaintiff says that “said bathhouse and the various portions thereof, including said passageway, were extremely dark”. The evidence apparently dissipated the darkness and changed the claim of negligence to one of too much light. We are not able to find that the defendant was in any respect negligent or responsibe for the injuries sustained by plaintiff.

The judgment is therefore reversed and final judgment is entered for the defendant.

RICHARDS and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

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

*5 LLOYD, J.

Although she says she did not notice it, nevertheless the fact is that there was a lighted 100 watt incandescent bulb directly above the step. There is no evidence tending to show that the floor of the aisle was improperly laid or that the step had been negligently constructed or was in any way defective. Counsel for plaintiff in their brief say “it is true that there was a light directly above this step, but its rays tended to divert her attention from the danger below to the brightness above. No warning of any nature whatsoever was given to the plaintiff — the defendant took no precautions to safeguard her life and limb except through the installation of this misleading and deceiving electric light — and she was left unknowing to learn for the first time of the perilous condition through the sorrow of her injuries.” In her petition plaintiff says that “said bathhouse and the various portions thereof, including said passageway, were extremely dark”. The evidence apparently dissipated the darkness and changed the claim of negligence to one of too much light. We are not able to find that the defendant was in any respect negligent or responsibe for the injuries sustained by plaintiff.

The judgment is therefore reversed and final judgment is entered for the defendant.

RICHARDS and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 N.E. 47, 42 Ohio App. 305, 12 Ohio Law. Abs. 4, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ga-boeckling-co-v-alexander-ohioctapp-1932.