Isaac Leisy Brew. Co. v. Kapl

Cuyahoga Circuit Court

Isaac Leisy Brew. Co. v. Kapl

28 Ohio C.C. Dec. 476, 22 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 309

DecidedDecember 7, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Ohio C.C. Dec. 476 (Isaac Leisy Brew. Co. v. Kapl) 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

Isaac Leisy Brew. Co. v. Kapl, 28 Ohio C.C. Dec. 476, 22 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 309 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRY, J.

In the action below the defendant in error recovered a verdict and- judgment for injuries sustained by him from the overthrow of a bar fixture which had been temporarily placed during removal, in the space, between sidewalk and curb in the-street, in front of the plaintiff’s premises. It was left in unstable equilibrium, and the defendant in error, a child of six years, intermeddled with it so that it fell over on him.

Because this was a public street where the child had a right to be and whdre it was to be expected that small children would exercise their childish instincts, a majority of the court are unwilling to hold that the doctrine of Wheeling & L. E. Ry. v. Harvey, 77 Ohio St. 235 [83 N. E. 66; 19 L. R. A.(N. S.)1136; 122 Am. St. 503; 11 Ann. Cas. 981], as applicable to private premises, rules in this case; especially as that decision distinguishes instead of in terms reversing, Harriman v. Railway, 45 Ohio St. 11 [12 N. E. 451; 4 Am. St. 507].

Judgment affirmed.

Marvin, J., concurs. Winch, J., dissents.

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

HENRY, J.

In the action below the defendant in error recovered a verdict and- judgment for injuries sustained by him from the overthrow of a bar fixture which had been temporarily placed during removal, in the space, between sidewalk and curb in the-street, in front of the plaintiff’s premises. It was left in unstable equilibrium, and the defendant in error, a child of six years, intermeddled with it so that it fell over on him.

Because this was a public street where the child had a right to be and whdre it was to be expected that small children would exercise their childish instincts, a majority of the court are unwilling to hold that the doctrine of Wheeling & L. E. Ry. v. Harvey, 77 Ohio St. 235 [83 N. E. 66; 19 L. R. A.(N. S.)1136; 122 Am. St. 503; 11 Ann. Cas. 981], as applicable to private premises, rules in this case; especially as that decision distinguishes instead of in terms reversing, Harriman v. Railway, 45 Ohio St. 11 [12 N. E. 451; 4 Am. St. 507].

Judgment affirmed.

Marvin, J., concurs. Winch, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Ohio C.C. Dec. 476, 22 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isaac-leisy-brew-co-v-kapl-ohcirctcuyahoga-1908.