Toledo v. Creighton

Ohio Court of Appeals

Toledo v. Creighton

18 Ohio Law. Abs. 332, 1934 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1024

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 19, 1934

DocketNo 2967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 Ohio Law. Abs. 332 (Toledo v. Creighton) 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

Toledo v. Creighton, 18 Ohio Law. Abs. 332, 1934 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1024 (Ohio Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT

The facts in this case show that as the plaintiff below, Alice C. C'reight.on, was proceeding along a sidewalk, in the daytime, she slipped upon ice which had formed thereon. ' The law which governs is found in the following cases:

Shaefler v Sandusky, 33 Oh St, 246;

Chase v Cleveland, 44 Oh St, 505;

Conneaut v Neaf, 54 Oh St, 529.

The' plaintiff in-error raises, the . question that the court below should have directed a verdict for the defendant, the City of Toledo. An examination of the record, however, discloses that although a motion for a directed verdict was made at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, and overruled, that thereupon the defendant offered evidence, but that there was no renewal of the motion at the conclusion of all the evidence in the case. The question, therefore, is not made by the record. Woodman v Stahl, 28 Oh Ap, 464 (6 Abs 83). Whether or not the court below should or should not have directed a verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence is not before us, and we do not pass upon that question.

We have examined the record and in our judgment the verdict is manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and on .that ground solely, the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

'RICHARDS, WILLIAMS and LLOYD, JJ, concur.

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

OPINION

By THE COURT

The facts in this case show that as the plaintiff below, Alice C. C'reight.on, was proceeding along a sidewalk, in the daytime, she slipped upon ice which had formed thereon. ' The law which governs is found in the following cases:

Shaefler v Sandusky, 33 Oh St, 246;

Chase v Cleveland, 44 Oh St, 505;

Conneaut v Neaf, 54 Oh St, 529.

The' plaintiff in-error raises, the . question that the court below should have directed a verdict for the defendant, the City of Toledo. An examination of the record, however, discloses that although a motion for a directed verdict was made at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, and overruled, that thereupon the defendant offered evidence, but that there was no renewal of the motion at the conclusion of all the evidence in the case. The question, therefore, is not made by the record. Woodman v Stahl, 28 Oh Ap, 464 (6 Abs 83). Whether or not the court below should or should not have directed a verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence is not before us, and we do not pass upon that question.

We have examined the record and in our judgment the verdict is manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and on .that ground solely, the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

'RICHARDS, WILLIAMS and LLOYD, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Ohio Law. Abs. 332, 1934 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toledo-v-creighton-ohioctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack