Plotkin v. Meeks

The substance of plaintiff in error’s contention is that under the law as laid down by this court in McKinley v. Niederst, 118 Ohio St., 334, 160 N. E., 850, defendant in error was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; that consequently, the requested charge was proper, notwithstanding the fact that it' assumed the existence of contributory negligence on the part of the defendant in error.

The rule announced in the McKinley v. Niederst case is limited in its application and operation to the facts there presented. In that case the court, in its opinion, said: “At the trial, the…