Whitaker v. French-Bauer, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Whitaker v. French-Bauer, Inc.

58 N.E.2d 64, 74 Ohio App. 197, 29 Ohio Op. 333, 1943 Ohio App. LEXIS 601

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 1943

Docket6349

StatusPublished

This text of 58 N.E.2d 64 (Whitaker v. French-Bauer, Inc.) 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

Whitaker v. French-Bauer, Inc., 58 N.E.2d 64, 74 Ohio App. 197, 29 Ohio Op. 333, 1943 Ohio App. LEXIS 601 (Ohio Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

This is an appeal on questions of law from the Court of Common Pleas o'f Hamilton county, Ohio.

In this case the defendant admitted liability through the opening statement of its counsel. It sought, however, to introduce evidence tending to show that the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff could not have been incurred, for the reason that the impact of the two vehicles involved was slight and trivial. The court excluded such evidence and refused counsel the right to then make a proffert. In so doing, the court committed error, prejudicial to defendant. The court also in questioning the plaintiff framed certain questions in a manner which could not be otherwise than prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.

For the reasons given, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed and the case remanded to that court for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Ross, P. J., Hildebrant and Matthews, JJ., concur.

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

By the Court.

This is an appeal on questions of law from the Court of Common Pleas o'f Hamilton county, Ohio.

In this case the defendant admitted liability through the opening statement of its counsel. It sought, however, to introduce evidence tending to show that the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff could not have been incurred, for the reason that the impact of the two vehicles involved was slight and trivial. The court excluded such evidence and refused counsel the right to then make a proffert. In so doing, the court committed error, prejudicial to defendant. The court also in questioning the plaintiff framed certain questions in a manner which could not be otherwise than prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.

For the reasons given, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed and the case remanded to that court for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Ross, P. J., Hildebrant and Matthews, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.E.2d 64, 74 Ohio App. 197, 29 Ohio Op. 333, 1943 Ohio App. LEXIS 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitaker-v-french-bauer-inc-ohioctapp-1943.