Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cincinnati Street Ry. Co. v. Snell

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1896Published

Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county. Action below was by Snell against The Cincinnati Street Railway Co. to recover for personal injuries received by being struck by a moving car of the company. In the common pleas, at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony, a motion by the company to direct a verdict in its favor was sustained, and a judgment on the verdict so rendered was entered. This judgment was reversed by the circuit court.

Read the full summary

Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county. Action below was by Snell against The Cincinnati Street Railway Co. to recover for personal injuries received by being struck by a moving car of the company. In the common pleas, at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony, a motion by the company to direct a verdict in its favor was sustained, and a judgment on the verdict so rendered was entered. This judgment was reversed by the circuit court. The company asks a reversal of that judgment.

1DissentShauck, J.

The case upon which the trial judge gave a conclusive direction to the jury, taking the view most favorable to the plaintiff that the evidence would permit, was that his senses of sight and hearing were normal, that he knew he was upon a double *210track electric railway, that he quit a car and immediately passed to its rear toward the the other track without looking in the direction from which the colliding car came, and was struck and injured by a car approaching at a rate of speed which, under the circumstances, was dangerous, and that he had no knowledge of its approach. The negligence of the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Boerth v. West Side RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894

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

Powered by the Exa API