Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0315-03.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

No. 286
    CLEVELAND RY. CO. v. BEZOSKA
    Ohio Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
    No. 4235.
    Feb. 26, 1923
    LIABILITY — (1). No assumption of . liability in charge of court — (2) Repetitions of the same legal proposition when' there is only one theory to lawsuit, is not error. .
    Error to Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas
    Attorneys — Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, for Ry. Co.; Payer, Winch, Minshal! & Karch, for Bezoska.
   Epitomized Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Bezoska obtained a judgment in the lower court of $1500 for injuries sustained while she wa,s a passenger in one of the Railway Company’s cars. The Railway Company seeks to have the judgment reversed on the ground that the trial court, in his charge, assumed a liability on the pairt of the Railway Company and also submitted to the jury three requests which were but repititions of the sa.me legal proposition. Held by Court of Appeals in affirming judgment:

1. Submission of the case to the jury upon the undisputed testimony of the plaintiff is not an assumption by the court that there was a liability on the part- of the Railway Company.

2. There being only one theory to a lawsuit, it cannot be said that the action of the court in emphasizing the law applicable to the case, was prejudicial error. . z