Legal Opinion

Fick v. Pilsener Brewing Co.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

Decided April 8, 1948No. 558391PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*98OPINION

By McNAMEE, J:

Defendant’s motion for a new trial is based upon several grounds, the principal and most important of which is the claim that the Court erred in permitting the jury to consider the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This discussion will be limited to a consideration of the questions raised by the alleged error in this regard.

Defendant is engaged in business of brewing, bottling and distributing beer to retailers. On August 13th, 1945, the defendant delivered twenty-four cases of P. O. C. Beer to Mickey’s Bar where plaintiff was employed as a bartender. The cases of beer were…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Payne v. Rome Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
  2. Stolle v. Anheuser-Busch Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1925
  3. Goldman & Freiman Bottling Co. v. SindellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1922
  4. Benkendorfer v. GarrettCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1940
  5. MacRes v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1939

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cusumano v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1967
  2. Mahoney v. Shaker Square Beverages, Inc.Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1951
  3. Huggins v. John Morrell & Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API