Thornton v. Goldfarb

Ohio Court of Appeals

Thornton v. Goldfarb

119 N.E.2d 446, 67 Ohio Law. Abs. 232, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 916

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 1952

DocketNo. 4750

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 N.E.2d 446 (Thornton v. Goldfarb) 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

Thornton v. Goldfarb, 119 N.E.2d 446, 67 Ohio Law. Abs. 232, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 916 (Ohio Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT.

This is a law appeal from the order of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, dismissing the plaintiff’s second [233]*233amended petition, after sustaining a general demurrer thereto, the plaintiff having elected not to plead further

The plaintiff, a customer in defendants’ place of business, sued to recover damages for injuries sustained as a consequence of being struck and beaten by another customer of defendants. The defendants conducted a place of business where food and alcoholic drinks were sold.

Plaintiff in his second amended petition alleged that the “defendant has authorized and permitted” one Orville Harrow to strike and wound the plaintiff. The facts pleaded do not indicate that the defendants “authorized and permitted” said injury or violence. The case of Moon, et al. v. Conley, 9 Oh Ap 16, lays down the rule that a proprietor of any public house of entertainment may be answerable for the act of a patron for the failure to exercise ordinary care in preventing the same. The second amended petition fails to allege wherein defendant failed to exercise ordinary care.

Judgment affirmed.

HORNBECK, PJ, WISEMAN and MILLER, JJ, concur.

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

OPINION

By THE COURT.

This is a law appeal from the order of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, dismissing the plaintiff’s second [233]*233amended petition, after sustaining a general demurrer thereto, the plaintiff having elected not to plead further

The plaintiff, a customer in defendants’ place of business, sued to recover damages for injuries sustained as a consequence of being struck and beaten by another customer of defendants. The defendants conducted a place of business where food and alcoholic drinks were sold.

Plaintiff in his second amended petition alleged that the “defendant has authorized and permitted” one Orville Harrow to strike and wound the plaintiff. The facts pleaded do not indicate that the defendants “authorized and permitted” said injury or violence. The case of Moon, et al. v. Conley, 9 Oh Ap 16, lays down the rule that a proprietor of any public house of entertainment may be answerable for the act of a patron for the failure to exercise ordinary care in preventing the same. The second amended petition fails to allege wherein defendant failed to exercise ordinary care.

Judgment affirmed.

HORNBECK, PJ, WISEMAN and MILLER, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 N.E.2d 446, 67 Ohio Law. Abs. 232, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thornton-v-goldfarb-ohioctapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack