William Heffron Construction Co. v. Glass

Hamilton Circuit Court

William Heffron Construction Co. v. Glass

13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 555, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 338

DecidedDecember 11, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 555 (William Heffron Construction Co. v. Glass) 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

William Heffron Construction Co. v. Glass, 13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 555, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 338 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

The test in this state of the liability of a master for negligence of one servant causing injury to another servant is whether the former is placed in authority and control over the latter, and not whether he (the latter) was originally employed to do the act complained of, especially when such act is in furtherance of the work both are engaged in.

The objection to the charge of the court upon the subject of contributory negligence is not that the court instructed the jury that the negligence of the plaintiff, contributing directly to his injury, would defeat a recovery, but that the burden of proving-contributory negligence rested upon the defendant, although no such issue was tendered.

The defense at the trial was that the defendant was not guilty of any negligence, and that the accident was due entirely to the carelessness of the plaintiff. In such a ease the error is necessarily prejudicial. Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Forrest, 73 O. [556]*556S., 1; Traction Co. v. Stephens, 75 O. S., 171; List c§ Son Co. v. Chase, 80 O. S., 42.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for.a new trial.

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

The test in this state of the liability of a master for negligence of one servant causing injury to another servant is whether the former is placed in authority and control over the latter, and not whether he (the latter) was originally employed to do the act complained of, especially when such act is in furtherance of the work both are engaged in.

The objection to the charge of the court upon the subject of contributory negligence is not that the court instructed the jury that the negligence of the plaintiff, contributing directly to his injury, would defeat a recovery, but that the burden of proving-contributory negligence rested upon the defendant, although no such issue was tendered.

The defense at the trial was that the defendant was not guilty of any negligence, and that the accident was due entirely to the carelessness of the plaintiff. In such a ease the error is necessarily prejudicial. Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Forrest, 73 O. [556]*556S., 1; Traction Co. v. Stephens, 75 O. S., 171; List c§ Son Co. v. Chase, 80 O. S., 42.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for.a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 555, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-heffron-construction-co-v-glass-ohcircthamilton-1909.