Vanduzen Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Schelies

Hamilton Circuit Court

Vanduzen Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Schelies

10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 256

DecidedJanuary 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 256 (Vanduzen Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Schelies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vanduzen Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Schelies, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 256 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Swing, J.

The gist of the action against the engine company by Schelies.was that the company, through its foreman, peremptorily ordered him to perform a duty without providing proper safeguards for his protection, and that by reason thereof he was injured.

The case does not come within the principle of Coal Co. v. Norman, 49 Ohio St., 598, but is more like Railway Co. v. Lavalley, 36 Ohio St., 226, and cases cited by defendant in error. It was the duty of Schelies to obey the peremptory order of his foreman, unless the danger to him in doing so was obvious, and was so apparent to him that it would have been contributory negligence on his part to have obeyed the order. Whether it was or was not, in this case, is a question, under proper instructions, to be left to the jury.

We think a case was alleged in the petition, and, therefore, was not subject to demurrer. We think the charge of the court was very fair and correct, and that the jury was authorized from the evidence in finding the verdict.

Judgment affirmed; no penalty.

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

Swing, J.

The gist of the action against the engine company by Schelies.was that the company, through its foreman, peremptorily ordered him to perform a duty without providing proper safeguards for his protection, and that by reason thereof he was injured.

The case does not come within the principle of Coal Co. v. Norman, 49 Ohio St., 598, but is more like Railway Co. v. Lavalley, 36 Ohio St., 226, and cases cited by defendant in error. It was the duty of Schelies to obey the peremptory order of his foreman, unless the danger to him in doing so was obvious, and was so apparent to him that it would have been contributory negligence on his part to have obeyed the order. Whether it was or was not, in this case, is a question, under proper instructions, to be left to the jury.

We think a case was alleged in the petition, and, therefore, was not subject to demurrer. We think the charge of the court was very fair and correct, and that the jury was authorized from the evidence in finding the verdict.

Judgment affirmed; no penalty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanduzen-gas-gasoline-engine-co-v-schelies-ohcircthamilton-1899.