Slaline v. Cincinnati Sand Blast Co.

Ohio Circuit Courts

Slaline v. Cincinnati Sand Blast Co.

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 390

DecidedMarch 22, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 390 (Slaline v. Cincinnati Sand Blast Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Slaline v. Cincinnati Sand Blast Co., 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 390 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

GIFFEN, P. J.

It appears from the evidence as well as the amended petition that the proximate cause of the injury complained of was the toppling over of the stool upon which the plaintiff was standing, and there is no averment that the defendant negligently failed to provide a ladder instead. The averment is that the stool threw him upon said unguarded belt and by reason of said fail upon said unguarded belt (not by reason of said belt being unguarded) he received a fracture of his right leg.

[391]*391It is equally clear from the evidence that the unguarded belt or shafting was not the proximate cause of the injury. The negligence, if any, was that of plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.

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

GIFFEN, P. J.

It appears from the evidence as well as the amended petition that the proximate cause of the injury complained of was the toppling over of the stool upon which the plaintiff was standing, and there is no averment that the defendant negligently failed to provide a ladder instead. The averment is that the stool threw him upon said unguarded belt and by reason of said fail upon said unguarded belt (not by reason of said belt being unguarded) he received a fracture of his right leg.

[391]*391It is equally clear from the evidence that the unguarded belt or shafting was not the proximate cause of the injury. The negligence, if any, was that of plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slaline-v-cincinnati-sand-blast-co-ohiocirct-1909.