Phillips v. Ingersoll-Humphryes Division

Appellee’s first contention is that the trial court committed error- in sustaining appellant’s motion for a directed verdict.

*268Appellee argues that his petition and opening statement contain sufficient facts to warrant submission of the case to a jury. Appellee cites Neckel v. Fox (1924), 110 Ohio St. 150, and quotes therefrom language which indicates that a trial court should not accept a motion for directed verdict where the facts are so meagerly stated that the nature of the claim cannot be determined. Appellee contends that the opening statement and petition do contain sufficient facts to…