Horner v. Spence

Cuyahoga Circuit Court

Horner v. Spence

29 Ohio C.C. Dec. 523, 17 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 28, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 396

DecidedJune 14, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ohio C.C. Dec. 523 (Horner v. Spence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horner v. Spence, 29 Ohio C.C. Dec. 523, 17 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 28, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 396 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

WINCH, J.

Homer sued Spence Brothers and the city of Cleveland for damages sustained to his horse and cutter by reason of running onto a small pile of bricks in the street covered up by snow so that he did not see it. Spence Brothers were dismissed out of the suit, and, upon submission of plaintiff’s evidence as to the liability of the city, the trial court directed a verdict in its favor, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show who left the bricks in the street or that they had been there for any length of time before the accident.

There being nothing in the case to show that the city had actual or constructive notice of this nuisance in the street, the order of the trial judge was clearly right.

Judgment affirmed.

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

WINCH, J.

Homer sued Spence Brothers and the city of Cleveland for damages sustained to his horse and cutter by reason of running onto a small pile of bricks in the street covered up by snow so that he did not see it. Spence Brothers were dismissed out of the suit, and, upon submission of plaintiff’s evidence as to the liability of the city, the trial court directed a verdict in its favor, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show who left the bricks in the street or that they had been there for any length of time before the accident.

There being nothing in the case to show that the city had actual or constructive notice of this nuisance in the street, the order of the trial judge was clearly right.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ohio C.C. Dec. 523, 17 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 28, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horner-v-spence-ohcirctcuyahoga-1909.