McBride v. May Dept. Stores Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
Plaintiff in error contends that the court should have charged that the same degree of care is required as of a common carrier of passengers, namely, the highest degree of care.
It is apparent, therefore, that the <5nly question before this court is the degree of care incumbent upon defendant and what the charge of the trial court should have been in this respect.
We hold that the bill of exceptions is sufficient to show the issues presented and sufficient to indicate what should be the correct charge in this respect.
Attention is directed to the case of McDowell v Rockey, 32 Oh Ap, 27, decided…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McDowell v. RockeyOhio Court of Appeals · 1929
3Cited by8 opinions
- May Department Stores Co. v. BellCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
- Hecht Co., Inc. v. JacobsenCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
- S. S. Kresge Co. v. McCallionCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
- Heffernan v. Mandel Bros.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1938
- Tolman v. Wieboldt Stores, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.