Legal Opinion
Dewert v. Cincinnati Milling Machine Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided February 20, 1933No. 4213PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By HAMILTON, PJ.
The defendant company knew that there were workmen in the upper reaches of the mill room, among the metal frame work, and its duty was to use reasonable care to avoid injuring the workmen.
It is in evidence that the crane in moving on the tracks made a great deal of noise.
The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that the noise of the factory prevented the workmen from hearing the noise of the. operating crane on the tracks.
The plaintiff’s work in the place where injured was temporary, and plaintiff had nearly completed the work when injured.
It is suggested in the petition…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Pollitt v. Mobay Chemical Corp.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1982
- Hatter v. McMunnOhio Court of Appeals · 1935
- Russell v. Penn Mutual Life InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1941
- Malone v. Indust. Comm., Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1940