Case ID: ohio-law-abs_21/html/0398-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By STEVENS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FURRY v AKRON & BARBERTON BELT RD CO
    Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co
    No 2638.
    Decided Feb 19, 1936
    Yetta Land, Cleveland, and Ferbstein & Sicherman, Akron, for plaintiff in error.
    Waters, Andress, Wise, Roetzel & Maxon, Akron, for defendant in error.
   OPINION

By STEVENS, J.

It seems to this court that the case of the D., T. & I. Rd. Co. v Rohrs, 114 Oh St 493, is entirely dispositive of the situation here presented, and that reasonable minds could reasonably reach but one conclusion from the evidence, to-wit, that “there is no doubt that had she looked she must have seen the clanger, that was immediately at hand, in time to have avoided the injury.-’

It follows that we are of the opinion the trial court was correct in directing a verdiet for defendant; and the judgment of that court will accordingly be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

FUNK, PJ, and WASHBURN, J, concur in judgment.