Degroodt v. Skrbina

The real questions in this case have been somewhat confused by the evocation and discussion of the principle announced in Railroad Co. v. Harvey, 77 Ohio St., 235, 83 N. E., 66. Under the allegations of the second amended petition, sustained to some extent by the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, the rule announced in Harriman v. Railway Co., 45 Ohio St., 11, 12 N. E., 451, 4 Am. St. Rep., 507, is more applicable. This case does not present a situation where the instrumentality is upon private premises, where the occupier owes no duty to children who approach the same. The infant had a…