Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0588-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 732
    PIERCE v. CLEVE. ICE CREAM CO.
    No. 19917.
    Supreme Court
    Cn motion to certify.
    Dock. June 23, 1926;
    4 Abs. 404.
    225. CHARGE TO JURY — Whore a charge io the jury in an action for damages arising frern alleged negligence, one proposition of law is stated in many different ways thereby belli ; iterated and reiterated, the charge stating 18 times that “your verdict should be for the defendant,” has prejudicial error been committed?
    Attorneys — Day & Day, Wm. M. Byrnes and W. A. Kane for Pierce; J. H. McNcal for Company; all of Cleveland.
   This action was brought originally by Perry Pierce against The Cleveland Ice Cream Co. in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas for damages arising from the collision of an automobile being driven by Pierce with a truck being driven by an employee of the Ice Cream Company, by reason of the alleged negligence of said employee.

It appeared that Pierce had followed the truck for some distance and upon approaching a street, it is alleged, the truck driver turned the truck slightly to the right and thereupon Pierce attempted to pass the truck to the left, but before passing the truck the driver swung the truck to the left thereby causing Pierce’s machine to turn over causing him personal injuries.

The court in its charge to the jury stated “Your verdict should be for the defendant”, 18 times; and many of the special requests and sections of the general charge the same proposition of law concerning negligence etc. was stated in different ways.

Pierce in the Supreme Court contends:

1. That the court erred in charging the jury before argument.

2. That the court erred in giving many special requests to the jury before argument, thereby over emphasizing the defendant’s contentions.

3. That the fact that the court charged in only one instance concerning facts which would justify a verdict for the plaintiff and 18 times which would justify a verdict for the defendant was the committing of prejudicial error.

4. That the over emphasis of defendant’s case by the trial court is reversible error.