Shank v. Foundry Machine Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Shank v. Foundry Machine Co.

155 N.E. 564, 23 Ohio App. 323, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 815, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 401

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 13, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 N.E. 564 (Shank v. Foundry Machine 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

Shank v. Foundry Machine Co., 155 N.E. 564, 23 Ohio App. 323, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 815, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 401 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

CUSHING, J.

Albert Logsdon was employed by the Hamilton Foundry & Machine Co. in and about a sand conveyor located in the Company’s plant prior to May 2.0, 1920. On that day he received an injury alleged to have been the result of the failure of the Company to protect the sand conveyor, from the effect of which injury he died.

R. J. Shank the administrator brought an action against the Company in the Butler Common Pleas and received a verdict. The verdict was set aside by the trial court on the ground that it was against the weight of the evidence; and the jury in the second trial returned a verdict in favor of the Company.

Error was prosecuted and it was claimed that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; that the court erred in its charge, and in refusing to admit evidence offered by plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held:

1. Where the trial court has granted one new trial on the weight of the evidence, it is prohibited by 11577 GC. from granting a second new trial on that ground; and the Court of Appeals is without authority to weigh the evidence and determine whether or not the verdict is against the weight thereof. 101 OS. 316.

*816 Attorneys — Shank & Shank for Administrator'; W. C. Shepherd for Company; all of Hamilton.

2. The court- in its charge to the jury quoted paragraph 2 of 1027 GC. and thus gave to the jury the proper rule by which it should be guided in determining whether or not the Company was guilty of negligence. This charge was not erroneous.

3. The court did not err in refusing to permit plaintiff to show what was done with the sand conveyor after the accident. Under the statute, the question was whether it was protected at the time of the accident and whether that protection was as the statute requires.

4. There being no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

(Buchwalter, PJ., and Hamilton, J., concur.)

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