Case Name: The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Henry Potter
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1926
Citations: 4 Ohio Law Abs. 14
Docket Number: No. 19015
Parties: The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Henry Potter.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 4
Pages: 14–14

Head Matter:
No. 19015
The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Henry Potter.

Opinion:
JONES, J.
1. Where a plaintiff relies upon a legal duty due him from a defendant as a ground for recovery, the facts creating such duty should he alleged in his petition.
2. In the absence of allegations giving rise to such duty, the admission of testimony and a charge of the court imposing such duty are' erroneous, if objections thereto are duly made by the defendant.
3. One not being at the time engaged as an employe of a railroad company, who without its invitation or inducement, voluntarily and for his own convenience rides on the end sill of a baggage car, and from that position steps down in front of a passing locomotive, thus placing himself in a perilous situation of which the company has no knowledge, is a mere licensee to whom the company only owes the duty of refraining from wantonly or wilfully injuring him and to exercise ordinary care after discovering his peril.
Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.