Kyle v. Fok

Ohio Supreme Court

Kyle v. Fok

247 N.E.2d 457, 18 Ohio St. 2d 70, 47 Ohio Op. 2d 191, 1969 Ohio LEXIS 370

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 7, 1969

DocketNo. 68-596

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 N.E.2d 457 (Kyle v. Fok) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kyle v. Fok, 247 N.E.2d 457, 18 Ohio St. 2d 70, 47 Ohio Op. 2d 191, 1969 Ohio LEXIS 370 (Ohio 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action for wrongful death as the result of alleged medical malpractice, the trial court, in special instructions before argument, employed the phrase “guilty of malpractice.” The motion to certify was allowed because a majority of the court is of the opinion that such use of the word “guilty” in civil damage actions is reversible error. Cf. Bahm v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Rd. Co. (1966), 6 Ohio St. 2d 192; Reep v. Greyhound Corp. (1960), 171 Ohio St. 199.

In considering the cause upon the record before us, however, we are compelled to find that no objection to the prejudicial term was made. For this reason, the appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently allowed.

Appeal dismissed.

Matthias, Leach, Herbert and Duncan, JJ., concur. Tapt, C. J., and O’Neill, J., concur in the judgment. Leach, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Schneider, J.

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