Legal Opinion

Helvie v. Ratta

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 22, 1933No. 2112PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFunk, J.

It is contended that the court erred in charging the jury as follows:

“The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence what he claims. That is, that the defendant was negligent in this particular case, and that such negligence was the sole and proximate cause of the injury to his machine. The burden is upon the plaintiff to show that he was without fault and that he was not guilty of any negligence himself which was a contributing cause of the injury, but that, on the contrary, the injury was caused solely and wholly by the negligence of the defendant.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sikora v. BauerOhio Court of Appeals · 1930
  2. Cox v. WaltzOhio Court of Appeals · 1932

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Grable v. HendersonOhio Court of Appeals · 1934
  2. Thomas v. HeerOhio Court of Appeals · 1934
  3. Valencic v. Akron Barberton Belt Rd. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API