Kushinsky v. Storck

FUNK, PJ.

Our Supreme Court has said at least three times that the language used by the court, to wit, “to the satisfaction of the jury,” means more than a preponderance of the evidence and is prejudicial error.

Kelch v. State, 55 OS. 146, at pp. 152-153.

B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Linn, 77 OS. 615.

C., H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Frye, 80 OS. 289.

The Supreme Court has also gone further and held, in the case of Montanari v. Haworth, 108 OS. 8, at p. 14, that such error cannot be ignored under the substantial justice rule.

However, counsel for plaintiff contends that there was no contributory negligence on the…