Case Name: ANDREW HORNYAK v. BRICK CO.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-01-22
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 169
Docket Number: No. 1269
Parties: ANDREW HORNYAK v. BRICK CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 169–169

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.