Thurman v. City Railway Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Thurman v. City Railway Co.

136 N.E.2d 452, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 77, 1955 Ohio App. LEXIS 707

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 15, 1955

DocketNo. 2338

StatusPublished

This text of 136 N.E.2d 452 (Thurman v. City Railway 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

Thurman v. City Railway Co., 136 N.E.2d 452, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 77, 1955 Ohio App. LEXIS 707 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

[78]*78OPINION

By THE COURT:

This is a law appeal from a judgment of the common pleas court rendered in favor of the defendant upon instructions from the court at the close of the plaintiff’s case.

The action was instituted in the Court of Common Pleas for Montgomery County, seeking to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff when she fell while alighting from one of the defendant’s trolley busses.

The question presented is whether there was any evidence in a substantial form from which a reasonable mind could draw a logical conclusion that the defendant was negligent in any respect, which could have been a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

We have examined the entire bill of exceptions and find no evidence therein from which such an inference could be drawn. Negligence is never presumed, and the mere fact that an injury has been sustained does not give rise to a presumption or inference of negligence. Root v. The O’Brien Milling Co., 70 Abs 269, 128 N. E. (2d) 148. In order that any negligence might be established in this case it is necessary to base an inference upon an inference, which may not be done. Sobolovitz v. Lubric Oil Co., 107 Oh St 206; Hurt v. Rogers Transportation & Ford Motor Co., 66 Abs 106.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

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

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

[78]*78OPINION

By THE COURT:

This is a law appeal from a judgment of the common pleas court rendered in favor of the defendant upon instructions from the court at the close of the plaintiff’s case.

The action was instituted in the Court of Common Pleas for Montgomery County, seeking to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff when she fell while alighting from one of the defendant’s trolley busses.

The question presented is whether there was any evidence in a substantial form from which a reasonable mind could draw a logical conclusion that the defendant was negligent in any respect, which could have been a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

We have examined the entire bill of exceptions and find no evidence therein from which such an inference could be drawn. Negligence is never presumed, and the mere fact that an injury has been sustained does not give rise to a presumption or inference of negligence. Root v. The O’Brien Milling Co., 70 Abs 269, 128 N. E. (2d) 148. In order that any negligence might be established in this case it is necessary to base an inference upon an inference, which may not be done. Sobolovitz v. Lubric Oil Co., 107 Oh St 206; Hurt v. Rogers Transportation & Ford Motor Co., 66 Abs 106.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 N.E.2d 452, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 77, 1955 Ohio App. LEXIS 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thurman-v-city-railway-co-ohioctapp-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack