Railroad Co. v. Aller

Ohio Supreme Court

Railroad Co. v. Aller

56 Ohio St. (N.S.) 754

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 23, 1897

DocketNo. 4965

StatusPublished

This text of 56 Ohio St. (N.S.) 754 (Railroad Co. v. Aller) 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

Railroad Co. v. Aller, 56 Ohio St. (N.S.) 754 (Ohio 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

The majority of the court being of the opinion. that though there may have been actionable negligence on the part of the defendant below in not properly protecting the platform or lighting the premises, (a question about which there is doubt) still it is clear, as the majority think, that the plaintiff below was guilty of negligence, contri[755]*755buting to his injury, in walking on the platform without knowing whether it was safe or not. The platform was not designated to be used as a walk, but for the purpose of facilitating the handling of the freight of the road, so that the plaintiff in using it as a walk and in assuming that it was safe for such purpose without knowing, must, in great part, be regarded as the author of his own injury. It is therefore, ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgments of the said circuit court and of the court of common pleas be and the same are hereby reversed at the costs of the defendant in error.

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

The majority of the court being of the opinion. that though there may have been actionable negligence on the part of the defendant below in not properly protecting the platform or lighting the premises, (a question about which there is doubt) still it is clear, as the majority think, that the plaintiff below was guilty of negligence, contri[755]*755buting to his injury, in walking on the platform without knowing whether it was safe or not. The platform was not designated to be used as a walk, but for the purpose of facilitating the handling of the freight of the road, so that the plaintiff in using it as a walk and in assuming that it was safe for such purpose without knowing, must, in great part, be regarded as the author of his own injury. It is therefore, ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgments of the said circuit court and of the court of common pleas be and the same are hereby reversed at the costs of the defendant in error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Ohio St. (N.S.) 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/railroad-co-v-aller-ohio-1897.