Palm v. Community Traction Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Palm v. Community Traction Co.

167 N.E. 604, 32 Ohio App. 89, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 243, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 574

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 25, 1929

DocketNo 2182

StatusPublished

This text of 167 N.E. 604 (Palm v. Community Traction Co.) 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

Palm v. Community Traction Co., 167 N.E. 604, 32 Ohio App. 89, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 243, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 574 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDS, J.

This charge was given to the jury in ad-' vanee of'argument and over the exception of counsel for plaintiff, and was again given to the jury in the course of the general charge. It made the right of the plaintiff to recover depend solely upon whether she was injured on the precise day that she stated in her testimony, even though other testimony was introduced which would indicate that the accident occurred at a time when Rymariewicz was the motorman, wearing badge No. 277, and when car No. 624 was' in use on Erie street. We think this charge was manifestly erroneous and prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff.

Some confusion as to date may have' arisen from the fact that the first day of *244 January, 1928, was on a Sunday, and that the following Monday was observed as a holiday. If the plaintiff had in mind that the accident occurred two days after the day that was observed as New Year’s day, that would bring the date January 4th instead of January 3rd, and-it appears from the record that the defendant company has a different schedule for Sundays and holidays. The effect of the instruction was to make the right of recovery depend wholly and absolutely on the plaintiff’s recollection of the date on which she claims to have been injured, rather than on the merits of the case.

It is urged, however, that under the doctrine announced in McAllister vs. Hartzell, 60 Ohio St., 69, and other kindred cases, the judgment could not be reversed for this error. This court recognizes and has often applied the rule to which reference has been made, but that rule can have no application where the charge is of such a character that it relates to all the issues and the instruction given in this case covered the whole scope of all of the issues. The Scioto Valley-Railway & Power Co. vs. Rutter, Admx. 112 Oh St., 500. The instruction was equivalent to saying to the jury: “No matter how seriously the plaintiff was injured, nor under what circumstances, she is not entitled to recover unless the injury occurred on January 3rd, 1928, at about 7:30 P. M.”

For the reasons given the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.

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

RICHARDS, J.

This charge was given to the jury in ad-' vanee of'argument and over the exception of counsel for plaintiff, and was again given to the jury in the course of the general charge. It made the right of the plaintiff to recover depend solely upon whether she was injured on the precise day that she stated in her testimony, even though other testimony was introduced which would indicate that the accident occurred at a time when Rymariewicz was the motorman, wearing badge No. 277, and when car No. 624 was' in use on Erie street. We think this charge was manifestly erroneous and prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff.

Some confusion as to date may have' arisen from the fact that the first day of *244 January, 1928, was on a Sunday, and that the following Monday was observed as a holiday. If the plaintiff had in mind that the accident occurred two days after the day that was observed as New Year’s day, that would bring the date January 4th instead of January 3rd, and-it appears from the record that the defendant company has a different schedule for Sundays and holidays. The effect of the instruction was to make the right of recovery depend wholly and absolutely on the plaintiff’s recollection of the date on which she claims to have been injured, rather than on the merits of the case.

It is urged, however, that under the doctrine announced in McAllister vs. Hartzell, 60 Ohio St., 69, and other kindred cases, the judgment could not be reversed for this error. This court recognizes and has often applied the rule to which reference has been made, but that rule can have no application where the charge is of such a character that it relates to all the issues and the instruction given in this case covered the whole scope of all of the issues. The Scioto Valley-Railway & Power Co. vs. Rutter, Admx. 112 Oh St., 500. The instruction was equivalent to saying to the jury: “No matter how seriously the plaintiff was injured, nor under what circumstances, she is not entitled to recover unless the injury occurred on January 3rd, 1928, at about 7:30 P. M.”

For the reasons given the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 N.E. 604, 32 Ohio App. 89, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 243, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palm-v-community-traction-co-ohioctapp-1929.