Meese v. Wylie

169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 252
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMay 27, 1959
DocketNo. 35860
StatusPublished

This text of 169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 252 (Meese v. Wylie) 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
Meese v. Wylie, 169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 252 (Ohio 1959).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is admitted that decedent died of coronary thrombosis, that the heart attack began while decedent was in the crane cab, and that such attack was not caused by anything arising out of his employment. Claimant’s contention is that the jarring and shaking of decedent’s body, caused by the crane’s impact with the bumper or crane stop while decedent was “blacked out,” was a sudden mishap or accidental occurrence, and that decedent’s pre-existing heart condition was aggravated and death accelerated by such sudden mishap.

A physician called as an expert witness, in answer to a hypothetical question, stated that in his opinion decedent’s heart attack began while he was in the crane cab and continued uninterrupted until his death an hour later, and that the jolting or shaking was enough to cause an acceleration of death. However, the physician did not state that the jolting or shaking was substantial or by what period of time death was accelerated. Two other expert witnesses testified that in their opinion there was no direct causal relationship between the injury decedent suffered in the cab and the death, and, in answer to a question whether, assuming decedent fell to the floor of the cab, “would that in your opinion be an accelerating factor in this case, would it aggravate the existing attack which began in the cab,” one expert witness replied that, “if it did, the possibility is very slight, ’ ’ and that the trauma had no effect whatsoever on deee-' dent’s death.

In order to recover, claimant must establish that the death of her husband was accelerated by a substantial period of time as a direct and proximate result of the accidental injury. In [254]*254support of her claim, claimant has not produced sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of the case to a jury.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and final judgment rendered for appellant on authority of McKee v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 168 Ohio St., 77, 151 N. E. (2d), 540, and Senvisky v. Truscon Steel Division of Republic Steel Corp., 168 Ohio St., 523, 156 N. E. (2d), 724.

Judgment reversed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias and Herbert, JJ., concur. Taet, Bell and Peck, JJ., dissent.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meese-v-wylie-ohio-1959.