Tillman v. Toledo

157 N.E. 120, 23 Ohio App. 442, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 550, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 419

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 28, 1926
• Docket: 1692
• Status: Published

Opinion

RICHARDS, J.

Joseph Tillman, Jr. commenced an action in Lucas Common Pleas to recover damages from the city of Toledo for injuries sustained when his auto skidded and broke through a railing of a bridge, falling a distance of 50 ft. into the water below.

It seems that Tillman in order to avoid a collision with an automobile which proceeded him and which had stopped suddenly, turned out to the left and seeing another car coming toward him, he turned to the right. In so doing his car skidded because of the dew on the creosote bridge blocks, and crashed through the rails.

Attorneys — Smith, Baker, Effler & Eastman for Tillman; F. H. Dotson, Dir. of Law, and Chas. T. Lawton, Asst. Dir. of Law, for City; all of Toledo.

The city denied negligence and claimed that Tillman was contributorily negligent in operating his car and in violating an ordinance requiring vehicles to proceed not faster than a walk. The lower court excluded evidence showing the condition of the railing and the planks of the sidewalk next to the railing. The verdict and judgment were in favor of the city. Error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals held:

1. The trial court was right in excluding evidence of the condition of the railing as the city was not bound to maintain a guard rail of sufficient strength to prevent automobiles from plunging off the bridge, the railing being intended for pedestrians.

2. The duty of a municipality in reference to its public ways is to keep them in a reasonably safe condition for public travel in the usual and ordinary modes. 101 OS. 111.

3. This duty would extend to the bridge involved in this litigation and whether or not it was fulfilled was a question for the jury .

4. The judgment cannot be disturbed when on the issues of negligence and contributory negligence the jury returns a general verdict, without indicating in what manner the result was reached, such verdict being free from error on either issue.

Judgment affirmed.