Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0314-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PARDEE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 280
    BOSWELL v. N. O. T. & L. CO.
    Ohio Court of Appeals, Summit County
    No. 596.
    Jan. 2, 1923
    NEGLIGENCE-^ — (1) Objection to incompetent question rightfully sustained — (2) Verdict not manifestly against weight of evidence will not be dis-tubed — (3) Claim of misconduct of lower court found unjustified — (4) Unduly long charge by jury not necessarily prejudicial. .
    Error to Summit Court of Common Pleas
    Attorneys — Carl H. Myers and C. C. McCarment, for Boswell; Mather, Nesbitt & Willkin, for Traction Co.
   PARDEE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Boswell, while driving his automobile in Canton, collided with a car belonging to the Traction Com-pnay and suffered damages as a result of the collision. He alleged negligence on the part of the Traction Company, while it claimed that the accident was the result either of contributory negligence or the sole negligence of Boswell. Judgment for the Traction Company in the lower court, and Boswell prosecutes error to this court. Held by Court of Appeals in affirming judgment'for the Tractions Company.

1. A question, asked the motorman of a street car, whether he knew that a certain corner was a dangerous one, would not aid the jury in determining which party was negligent, and the question was incompetent.

2. A verdict not manifestly against the weight of the evidence will not be disturbed.

3. A claim that the trial judge indicated to .the jury what he thought the verdict should be, was found to have no basis.

4. Although a charge is unduly long, and contains some repetitions, as well as unnecessary matter, it is not necessarily prejudicial and is not incompatible with a fair and impartial trial.