Marsch v. Cincinnati (City)

Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati

Marsch v. Cincinnati (City)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 475

CourtOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati

DecidedJuly 1, 1924

DocketNo. 5896

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 475 (Marsch v. Cincinnati (City)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marsch v. Cincinnati (City), 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 475 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

MARX. J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Marsch 'recovered a verdict for $750 for a sprained ankle received in a fall on a defective crossing: There was evidence of a second injury and the plaintiff was permitted to exhibit her ankle to the jury. The defendant requested twenty-one special charges be given to the jury. Some of the charges were long and some of them were asked in the alternative. The court refused all of the charges as an abuse of the privilege granted by the statute. In overruling- the motion for a new -trial the court held:

1. That the damages were not excessive and were not increased by improper evidence concerning a second injury. That there was nothing improper in - permitting the plaintiff to exhibit her ankle to the jury, as it was the best evidence of its actual condition.

2. That where the number of requests to charge the jury is so large as to evidence an intention to defeat the purpose of the statute, rather than an intention to conform to its purpose, all of the charges will be denied.

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

MARX. J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Marsch 'recovered a verdict for $750 for a sprained ankle received in a fall on a defective crossing: There was evidence of a second injury and the plaintiff was permitted to exhibit her ankle to the jury. The defendant requested twenty-one special charges be given to the jury. Some of the charges were long and some of them were asked in the alternative. The court refused all of the charges as an abuse of the privilege granted by the statute. In overruling- the motion for a new -trial the court held:

1. That the damages were not excessive and were not increased by improper evidence concerning a second injury. That there was nothing improper in - permitting the plaintiff to exhibit her ankle to the jury, as it was the best evidence of its actual condition.

2. That where the number of requests to charge the jury is so large as to evidence an intention to defeat the purpose of the statute, rather than an intention to conform to its purpose, all of the charges will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marsch-v-cincinnati-city-ohsuperctcinci-1924.