Humphrey v. Felker

14 Ohio Law. Abs. 715, 1933 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1395
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 3, 1933
DocketNo 2777
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 Ohio Law. Abs. 715 (Humphrey v. Felker) 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
Humphrey v. Felker, 14 Ohio Law. Abs. 715, 1933 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1395 (Ohio Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

Plaintiff below testified in substance as follows: She went in the grocery store of the defendants, located at the corner of Ashland Avenue and Floyd Street in the City of Toledo, Ohio, shortly before noon on March 15, 1929, for the purpose of getting a statement of account for use in the trial of a case, and to purchase some meat. One of the defendants was in the store and [716]*716upon being asked, to furnish the statement, he requested that plaintiff call her attorney. She went to the telephone and called up the attorney and as she stepped back and turned away from the desk on which the telephone was placed, she tripped and fell over a basket which was immediately behind her and “right where she walked up.” She further stated that the basket was not there when she went to the telephone °and that there were no customers in the store other than herself. There is also other evidence adduced which tends to show that, aside from the plaintiff, there was no one in the store but one of the two defendants, who operated it, and the help. Under these circumstances the inference arises from plaintiff’s evidence that the basket was negligently placed behind the plaintiff by some one in the store and connected with its operation while she stood at the desk using the telephone, and that she fell over it without knowledge that it was there.

In directing a verdict, the trial court erred to the prejudice of plaintiff in error and for that error the judgment of the court below will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

RICHARDS and LLOYD, JJ, concur.

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

Related

Richards v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
83 S.E.2d 917 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1954)
Richards v. GREAT A. & P. TEA CO.
83 S.E.2d 917 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Ohio Law. Abs. 715, 1933 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphrey-v-felker-ohioctapp-1933.