Schreckengost v. Montgomery

Ohio Supreme Court

Schreckengost v. Montgomery

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 165

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 29, 1964·No. No. 38427·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The two-issue rule is not applicable. There is but one cause of action, and it is based on the claimed negligence of defendant resulting in a single loss and damage. Separate specifications of negligence provide no basis for the application of the two-issue rule. Claypool v. Mohawk Motor, Inc., 155 Ohio St., 8.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Kovachy, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur. Kovachy, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Matthias, J.

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

Per Curiam.

The two-issue rule is not applicable. There is but one cause of action, and it is based on the claimed negligence of defendant resulting in a single loss and damage. Separate specifications of negligence provide no basis for the application of the two-issue rule. Claypool v. Mohawk Motor, Inc., 155 Ohio St., 8.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Kovachy, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur. Kovachy, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Matthias, J.

Schreckengost v. Montgomery, 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 165 (Ohio 1964).

Pincite

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 165 (Schreckengost v. Montgomery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related