Heils v. Cincinnati Traction Co.
This text of 23 Ohio C.C. Dec. 122 (Heils v. Cincinnati Traction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We think the demurrer of the Cincinnati Traction Company filed to the petition of plaintiff in error was properly sustained by the trial court.
While perhaps under the allegations of the petition the acts of negligence complained of against the traction company and the city of Cincinnati are such as constitute concurrent and related torts, yet the same are not joint, being independent in character, and therefore the defendants are not in law joint tort feasors. Morris v. Woodburn, 57 Ohio St. 330 [48 N. E. Rep. 1097]; Mineral City v. Gilbow, 81 Ohio St. 263 [90 N. E. Rep. 800; 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 627].
The action of the court upon the demurrer is correct and the judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 Ohio C.C. Dec. 122, 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 384, 1911 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heils-v-cincinnati-traction-co-ohcircthamilton-1911.