Matis v. Woodruff

Ohio Court of Appeals

Matis v. Woodruff

166 N.E. 203, 31 Ohio App. 73, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 118, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 588

DecidedJanuary 16, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 166 N.E. 203 (Matis v. Woodruff) 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

Matis v. Woodruff, 166 N.E. 203, 31 Ohio App. 73, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 118, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 588 (Ohio Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF COURT

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

RICHARDS, J.

Counsel for plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury that there was no evidence tending to show contributory negligence on her part, and the refusal to give that instruction is assigned as error. Under the circumstances disclosed by evidence it was certainly a question for the jury whether Mrs. Matis was guilty of contributory negligence; whether she ought to have protested to the driver of the car against undertaking-to cross the intersection ahead of the approaching car. The jury may have believed, from the circumstances, that an exclamation or a word from her just before Krivak undertook' to cross, would have caused him to allow his car to remain standing, or to stop if slowly moving, and thus have prevented the collision.

The jury was properly instructed that any negligence of Krivak could not be imputed to her, but in any event her failure to protest against his driving into the intersection in front of the approaching car which she saw coming, was some evidence of contributory negligence to be considered by 'the jury.

We _ find no error to the prejudice of the plaintiff in the general charge of the court. Ten requests were submitted by counsel for plaintiff and asked to be given after the general charge. There were at least two issues in this case, namely: the alleged negligence of the defendants and the claimed contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The jury having-returned a general verdict in favor of the defendants, thereby, found all of the issues in the case against the plaintiff. A finding on either issue for the defendants would have justified a verdict for them, and under the circumstances, a general verdict for the defendants, and judgment thereon, will not be reversed for error in instructions of the court relating exclusively*to one of the issues, there being no error on the other issue.

McAllister v. Hartzell, 60 Ohio St. 69; Jones v. Erie R. R. Co., 106 Ohio St., 408.

We have examined all of the-alleged errors assigned and find none prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff in error.

(Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.)

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

OPINION OF COURT

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

RICHARDS, J.

Counsel for plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury that there was no evidence tending to show contributory negligence on her part, and the refusal to give that instruction is assigned as error. Under the circumstances disclosed by evidence it was certainly a question for the jury whether Mrs. Matis was guilty of contributory negligence; whether she ought to have protested to the driver of the car against undertaking-to cross the intersection ahead of the approaching car. The jury may have believed, from the circumstances, that an exclamation or a word from her just before Krivak undertook' to cross, would have caused him to allow his car to remain standing, or to stop if slowly moving, and thus have prevented the collision.

The jury was properly instructed that any negligence of Krivak could not be imputed to her, but in any event her failure to protest against his driving into the intersection in front of the approaching car which she saw coming, was some evidence of contributory negligence to be considered by 'the jury.

We _ find no error to the prejudice of the plaintiff in the general charge of the court. Ten requests were submitted by counsel for plaintiff and asked to be given after the general charge. There were at least two issues in this case, namely: the alleged negligence of the defendants and the claimed contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The jury having-returned a general verdict in favor of the defendants, thereby, found all of the issues in the case against the plaintiff. A finding on either issue for the defendants would have justified a verdict for them, and under the circumstances, a general verdict for the defendants, and judgment thereon, will not be reversed for error in instructions of the court relating exclusively*to one of the issues, there being no error on the other issue.

McAllister v. Hartzell, 60 Ohio St. 69; Jones v. Erie R. R. Co., 106 Ohio St., 408.

We have examined all of the-alleged errors assigned and find none prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff in error.

(Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 N.E. 203, 31 Ohio App. 73, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 118, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matis-v-woodruff-ohioctapp-1928.