Sefton v. Premier Service Co.

Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati

Sefton v. Premier Service Co.

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 524, 1924 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1692

CourtOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati

DecidedApril 2, 1924

DocketNo. 58819

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 524 (Sefton v. Premier Service 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

Sefton v. Premier Service Co., 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 524, 1924 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1692 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

MARX, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

This was an action for personal injury brought by Edith Sefton. At the close of the trial the defendant requested the following special charge: “The court charges you that the plaintiff cannot recover if you find that she was guilty of negligence that directly contributed in the slightest degree to the injury sustained.” The court refused to give the charge requested by the defendant and gave instead the same charge substituting the word “any” in place of the word “slightest.” In so doing the court held:

1. As it is the duty of the court to give the jury the best instructions upon the subject rather than the worst, no error was committed by the court in substituting the word “any” for the word “slightest.”

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

MARX, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

This was an action for personal injury brought by Edith Sefton. At the close of the trial the defendant requested the following special charge: “The court charges you that the plaintiff cannot recover if you find that she was guilty of negligence that directly contributed in the slightest degree to the injury sustained.” The court refused to give the charge requested by the defendant and gave instead the same charge substituting the word “any” in place of the word “slightest.” In so doing the court held:

1. As it is the duty of the court to give the jury the best instructions upon the subject rather than the worst, no error was committed by the court in substituting the word “any” for the word “slightest.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 524, 1924 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sefton-v-premier-service-co-ohsuperctcinci-1924.