Ross v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co.

We deem it sufficient to say, generally, that we find no error in the particulars asserted in the second, third, fourth and fifth specifications. Defendant’s request No. 2 before argument, which 'was given, reads: “The plaintiff was required to exercise ordinary care for his own safety in walking upon the planked walkway between the tracks. Such ordinary care required that the plaintiff, who was in the full enjoyment of his faculties of hearing and seeing, before getting into close proximity to the rail, should use such faculties for the purpose of discovering and avoiding danger from an…