Case ID: ohio-cir-dec_10/html/0809-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NEGLIGENCE — RAILROADS.
    [Hamilton Circuit Court.]
    Cincinnati Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. v. Dagner.
    Failure to Remove Snow not Negligence, pee se.
    A railroad company is only bound to exercise ordinary care in view of dangers to be apprehended and a failure to remove snow from its tracks is not negligence, ¡per se.
    
    ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
    The defendant in error recovered a judgment below for $900, for injuries resulting from a fall over one of the rails of the company’s inbound track at Cumminsville, which she was crossing to reach a train on the out-bound track, snow had tallen during the night, but it had been cleared from the station platform, and one or more walks made across the in-bound to the out-bound track.
    The charge asked by the railway company which was refused, was: “I charge you that the defendant in this action was only bound to exercise ordinary care in view of any dangers to be apprehended, and that the failure of the defendant to remove snow from its tracks, is not negligence per se.”
    
    The general charge of the court on this subject, was: “If you find from the testimony that the defendant did use the care in clearing the approaches to this train, that a prudent person would have exercised under the circumstances, then your verdict will be for the defendant.”
    Ramsey, Maxwell & Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. W. Baker, contra.
    
   Per Curiam.

This special charge was correct, and there was error in refusing to give it, inasmuch as the general charge left out of view the last part of the special charge.