Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0129-29.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MATTHIAS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 160
    No. 19071.
    The Baker-Evans Ice Cream Co. v. Elizabeth Tedesco, an infant, etc.
    Error to the Court of Appeals of Mahoning County.
    829. NEGLIGENCE — 1. Not actionable where child struck by machine upon running away, due to fear of truck driver instilled by such driver calling “hey there” to group of children.
    2. Where children were in the habit of picking up ice from truck and were warned by driver on previous occasions, does not make applicable the doctrine of attractive nuisance.
   MATTHIAS, J.

It is not actionable negligence for the driver of an auto truck, standing at the curb of a city street, to call “Hey there” as a warning to children congregated about such truck for the purpose of procuring pieces of ice which had dropped therefrom into the street, where in addition to such act of claimed negligence it is averred that as a result of such warning and similar warnings on previous occasions, the plaintiff a child of five years of age and other children with her near the truck were put in fear of the driver and upon his approach would run away from the truck, although upon the occasion in question the plaintiff in crossing the street toward her home was struck by a passing automobile. The doctrine of attractive nuisance has no application under the facts here presented.

Judgment reversed.

Marshall, CJ., Jones, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.