Legal Opinion

Motz v. City of Akron

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 1, 1926No. 1140PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWashburn, J.

Aaron Motz brought an action in the Summit Common Pleas against the city of Akron and the firm of Hollinger & Davidson, contractors, for the purpose of recovering damages by reason of injuries sustained by him.

The city decided to construct a sewer in one of its streets and by arrangement with Hol1 nger & Davidson, a trench was dug and later rufLled with loose dirt which was then flushed with water and left in a muddy condition without lights or guards. One McGown was driving his horse along said street and said horse fell into the ditch and was unable to ex-trícate itself. Certain firemen of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Tabor v. Continental Baking CompanyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1941
  2. Springsteel v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1963
  3. Erie County United Bank v. BerkOhio Court of Appeals · 1943
  4. Acker v. McGinleyOhio Court of Appeals · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API