Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0169-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KINKADE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 121
    ANDREW HORNYAK v. BRICK CO.
    Ohio Court of Appeals, Lucas County
    No. 1269.
    Jan. 22, 1923
    DAMAGES — Injury from shooting by a watchman— Not proven to be within scope of duties — Nor done with intent.
    This opinion has not been published elsewhere.
    Error to Lucas Common Pleas
    Attorneys — Seney & Gluck, for plaintiff; Miller & Brady, for defendant.
   KINKADE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

A revolver in the hands of defendant’s watchman vas discharged by him and resulted in wounding fiaintiff Hornyak. It was claimed by him that the vatchman, while acting within the scope of his luties, caused the injury. The jury found in favor >f defendant.

Held:

1.That the record presents sufficient evidence to iustify the verdict, the jury probably finding that ;he watchman was not acting within the scope of his luties, and there being some evidence in the record lending to establish that the gun was discharged ac-fidentally, with no intention to shoot anybody, ludgment of Common Pleas affirmed.