McCarthy v. Cinc. Traction Co.

Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati

McCarthy v. Cinc. Traction Co.

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 400

CourtOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati

DecidedJuly 1, 1925

Docket58,925

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 400 (McCarthy v. Cinc. Traction Co.) 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

McCarthy v. Cinc. Traction Co., 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 400 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

MARX, J.

Hazel McCarthy filed an action for negligence claiming that the traction company was negligent in colliding with an automobile in which she was riding as a guest. The defendant filed a general denial to plaintiff’s petition, but did not charge contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. No evidence of contributory negligence was introduced. After the general charge, the defendant railway requested the court to charge on contributory, negligence which the court refused to do. In overruling the motion for a new trial the court held: . -

1. In an action alleging negligence against the defendant where the answer is a.'general denial and, defendant does not suggest the issue of contributory negligence by evidence or. argument, until after .the general charge to the jury, it is not error to refuse a request .to charge on that .subject. . -■.. .

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

MARX, J.

Hazel McCarthy filed an action for negligence claiming that the traction company was negligent in colliding with an automobile in which she was riding as a guest. The defendant filed a general denial to plaintiff’s petition, but did not charge contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. No evidence of contributory negligence was introduced. After the general charge, the defendant railway requested the court to charge on contributory, negligence which the court refused to do. In overruling the motion for a new trial the court held: . -

1. In an action alleging negligence against the defendant where the answer is a.'general denial and, defendant does not suggest the issue of contributory negligence by evidence or. argument, until after .the general charge to the jury, it is not error to refuse a request .to charge on that .subject. . -■.. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-cinc-traction-co-ohsuperctcinci-1925.