Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0282-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RICHARDS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 363
    COMMUNITY TRAC. CO. v. SEAR
    No. 1641.
    Decided Feb. 23, 1926
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Lucas Co.
    465. ERROR — Not reversible error in charge of court (225) as to future damages (355) when objection is not made to court so as to afford opportunity for correction other than by general exception.
    Attorneys — Tracy, Chapman & Welles for Company; Deeds & Cole for Sear; all of Toledo.
   RICHARDS, J.

Mary Sear sued the Community Traction Co. in the Lucas Common Pleas alleging personal injuries as a result of having a door of the car in which she was riding, close too suddenly upon her arm as she was about to alight, so as to cause her to be dragged some distance while the car was in motion.

The Company claimed she was not dragged. It admits liability, but contends the damages suffered by Sears were small in amount. A verdict for $3,000 was returned and judgment rendered in favor of Sears.

Error was prosecuted by the Company and it was insisted that the trial court erred in charging on the subject of future damages. The language of the charge on the subject is as follows: — “The compensation which she may be permitted to receive will include compensation for her pain and suffering since the accident, and such pain and suffering as she may continue to suffer in the future, if the injuries are of such a character as to cause pain and suffering in the future.” The Court of Appeals held:

1. This language is condemned by the Supreme Court in 65 OS. 403 and has been condemned by this court in a great many cases; and is certainly not a model charge.
2. In the instant case the attention of the trial court was not called to the error other than by a general exception to the charge.
3. In 22 CC. NS. 301, 303, similar language was used but it was not held reversible error and judgment was affirmed without report in 91 OS. 413.
4. If Sear consents to a remittitur of $1000, the judgment will be affirmed, other it will be reversed as not being sustained by sufficient evidence.

Judgment accordingly.