Iliff v. Cavey

Hamilton Circuit Court

Iliff v. Cavey

20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 824, 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 334, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 194

DecidedMay 23, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 824 (Iliff v. Cavey) 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.

Bluebook

Iliff v. Cavey, 20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 824, 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 334, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 194 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1908).

Pincite

Opinions

GIFFEN, J.

The negligence charged in the petition is the failure of the defendants to furnish the plaintiff’s intestate a safe place to work; that the-defendants knew and plaintiff’s intestate did not know the dangerous, condition of the brick wall which afterwards fell upon and billed him.

The. undisputed facts disclosed by the record are that about fifteen or twenty minutes before the accident occurred one of the defendants, discovered the dangerous condition of the brick wall near which the-workmen, including plaintiff’s intestate, were engaged; that he so informed them and ordered them away to a safe place; that two of the workmen — the deceased and one Bradley — disobeyed the order, the latter willfully and the former apparently so; that the deceased in the-full possession of his sense of hearing must have heard the order, and had abundant time and opportunity to obey the same.

It- is clear, therefore, that the deceased with full knowledge of the danger, and against the order of one of the defendants, voluntarily assumed the risk, and the court erred in overruling the motion of the deféndants at the conclusion of the evidence to arrest the ease from the jury.

It necessarily follows that the judgment must be reversed, and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs in error. Davis v. Somers-Cambridge Co. 75 Ohio St. 215 [79 N. E. Rep. 233].

Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

GIFFEN, J.

The negligence charged in the petition is the failure of the defendants to furnish the plaintiff’s intestate a safe place to work; that the-defendants knew and plaintiff’s intestate did not know the dangerous, condition of the brick wall which afterwards fell upon and billed him.

The. undisputed facts disclosed by the record are that about fifteen or twenty minutes before the accident occurred one of the defendants, discovered the dangerous condition of the brick wall near which the-workmen, including plaintiff’s intestate, were engaged; that he so informed them and ordered them away to a safe place; that two of the workmen — the deceased and one Bradley — disobeyed the order, the latter willfully and the former apparently so; that the deceased in the-full possession of his sense of hearing must have heard the order, and had abundant time and opportunity to obey the same.

It- is clear, therefore, that the deceased with full knowledge of the danger, and against the order of one of the defendants, voluntarily assumed the risk, and the court erred in overruling the motion of the deféndants at the conclusion of the evidence to arrest the ease from the jury.

It necessarily follows that the judgment must be reversed, and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs in error. Davis v. Somers-Cambridge Co. 75 Ohio St. 215 [79 N. E. Rep. 233].

Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 824, 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 334, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iliff-v-cavey-ohcircthamilton-1908.