Cohn v. Cincinnati Trac. Co.

Citations

• 35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 133

Syllabus

<p>JURY — STREET RAILWAY</p> <p>1. Reply by Young Attorney to Casual Question by Juror Retiring not Misconduct.</p> <p>A reply by a young attorney, not connected with the case on trial, to a casual question by a juror as the jury were retiring for deliberation, does not constitute misconduct warranting a reversal of the judgment.</p> <p>2. Refusal to Instruct Jury that if Motorman had Reason to Believe Child Might Come on Tracks, not Erroneous.</p> <p>It is not error to refuse to charge a jury, in an action against a traction company for injury to a child, that if the motorman had reason to believe the child might come upon the track or within the danger zone of the car, then he was bound to exercise more than the ordinary degree of care incumbent upon him,</p> <p>3. Traction Company not Liable for Injury to Child Running into Car.</p> <p>A traction company is not liable for injury to a child eight years of age, who became frightened and in attempting to cross the street ran into a rapidly moving car, colliding with the car just behind the forward vestibule.</p>