Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Co. v. Frye

Citations

• 80 Ohio St. (N.S.) 289

Syllabus

<p>Action by employe against employer — Jury instructions that employer owes employe — Duty to provide him reasonably safe place to work, is erroneous — Employer not insurer of absolute safety of place of work — Province of piry as to burden of proof — Law of evidence.</p> <p>T. In an action by an employe against his employer to recover dam-, ages for personal injuries, an instruction that the employer owed to his employe the duty to provide him a reasonably safe place in which to work, is erroneous, in that it imposes upon the employer a higher degree of care than the law requires or exacts of him. The employer is not an insurer or guarantor, of the absolute safety of the place of work, but the limit of his obligation and duty in that behalf is to exercise reasonable and ordinary care, having due regard to the hazards of the service, to provide his employe with a safe place in which to perform his work. ■</p> <p>2. In civil cases the jury deals only with probabilities, and the burden of proof is ordinarily carried by a preponderance of the evidence; hence, an instruction that the jury must be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence, of the truth of a fact in issue, is misleading and erroneous.</p>