Cincinnati (City) v. Ryan

Citations

• 24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 421

Syllabus

<p>ERROR — MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — NEGLIGENCE,</p> <p>1. Refusal to Instruct in Regard to Ability of Plaintiff to Sees and Avoid Defect in Street Held Prejudicial.</p> <p>In an action for negligence against a city in which the evidence tends to show that a passenger alighting from a street, car, although in the night season, by looking could have seen a hole in the street and avoided stepping into it, a refusal to-give a special instruction, directed to that phase of the case,, is prejudicial:</p> <p>2. Refusal to Give Judgment for City Upon Failure to Answer Interrogatory as to Safety of Street not Erroneous Since Jury Found City had Notice of Defect Therein. *</p> <p>A refusal to give judgment for a city in a negligence case is not improper for failure of the jury to answer an interrogatory as to whether the street in question was in reasonably safe-condition, especially since the jury did find that the city had constructive notice of the defect therein complained of.</p> <p>3. General Verdict for Plaintiff not Sustained Against Evidence of Heedlessness of Plaintiff in Using Part of Street not Intended for Pedestrians.</p> <p>A general verdict for plaintiff in an action -against a city for a. defect in a street is not sustained by sufficient evidence since-it appears from the evidence that plaintiff stepped heedlessly from a street car and unnecessarily used a part of the street, not intended for pedestrians.</p>