Legal Opinion

Ohm v. Miller

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 13, 1928No. 2054PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WILLIAMS, J

There is evidence in the record to the contrary, but for the purpose of determining whether the court '"•'red in directing a verdict, we must take the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. Pope, Admx. vs. Mudge, et al., 108 Ohio St., 192. It is a rule that ordinarily a master owes no duty to a person who, without promoting or protecting any interest of his own, voluntarily assists the servant, except the duty not to wantonly or wilfully injure him.

Street Railway vs. Bolton, 43 Ohio St., 224; Railroad vs. Marsh, 63 Ohio St., 236, 243; Bowling Green Railway Co. vs. Pfisterer, 5…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hargreaves v. DeaconMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. MeansIndiana Court of Appeals · 1914
  3. Baringer v. ZacheryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1924

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sandefur v. SandefurCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1950
  2. Howland v. Tri-State Theatres Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1944
  3. Fox v. Triplett Auto Wrecking, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1964
  4. Licht v. Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API