Legal Opinion

Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Co. v. Frye

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1909No. 10911Published

Error to the Circuit Court of Allen county. The defendant in error, Harry Frye, brought suit in the court of common pleas of Allen county, ' Ohio, against the plaintiff in error, The Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Company, to • recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while in the employ of said company, as a result of the derailing and overturning of a locomotive engine on which he was employed and of which he was then in charge in the capacity of a…

Read the full summary

Error to the Circuit Court of Allen county. The defendant in error, Harry Frye, brought suit in the court of common pleas of Allen county, ' Ohio, against the plaintiff in error, The Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Company, to • recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while in the employ of said company, as a result of the derailing and overturning of a locomotive engine on which he was employed and of which he was then in charge in the capacity of a locomotive engineer, by his running it into, or through an open derail, the location and existence of w'hich derail was, as…

1Opinion of the CourtCrew, C. J.

The grounds of error assigned and relied upon by plaintiff in error in this case are: 1. That the court of common pleas erred in its instructions to the jury respecting the duty of the defendant railway company in the matter of furnishing the plaintiff a safe place to work, by placing upon said company a greater obligation and higher degree of care in that behalf than the law requires. 2. That the trial court erred in the instruction given’ as to the quantum and degree of proof necessary to sustain the defense of contributory negligence. Under the first of the above assignments of error the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hughley v. City of WabashaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
  2. Fearon v. MullinsMontana Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Wabash Railroad v. FarrellAppellate Court of Illinois · 1898
  4. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. MerckesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1890
  5. Conway v. Ill. Cent. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1879

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

Powered by the Exa API