Case Name: John C. Roth Packing Co. v. Julius Wainer, a Minor
Court: Hamilton Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1912-08-03
Citations: 23 Ohio C.C. Dec. 636
Docket Number: 
Parties: John C. Roth Packing Co. v. Julius Wainer, a Minor.
Judges: Smith-, Swing and Jones, JJ.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 23
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
INFANTS — NEGLIGENCE.
[Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
August 3, 1912.]
Smith-, Swing and Jones, JJ.
John C. Roth Packing Co. v. Julius Wainer, a Minor.
Finding Boy of Twelve Years Free From Negligence not Reversible as Against Weight of Evidence or Contributory Negligence.
A verdict in favor of a boy of twelve years for injuries, resulting from his being run down by a team of horses while he was riding a bicycle on a street, will not be set aside on conflicting testimony, as against the weight of evidence, or for contributory negligence, it appearing that the jury, considering his age, found him free from negligence.
[Syllabus approved by the court.]
Error to common pleas court.
Julius Wainer, twelve years of age, was- riding a bicycle on Ninth, near Central avenue, Cincinnati, when he was run into by a three-horse team belonging to the ■ defendant below which was being driven rapidly around the corner. __ He was thrown under the horses, one of which kicked him on the right hip, fracturing one of the bones of the pelvis. The jury below rendered a verdict in his favor for $1,750.
Denis F. Cash, for plaintiff in error.
Max Levy, for defendant in error:
Cited and commented upon by the following authorities: — ■ Jones, Evidence 212, 581; Hohly v. Sheely, 11 Circ. Dec. 678 (21 R. 484); Hampton v. Railway, 48 S. C. 120 [26 S. E. Rep. 238; 35 L. R. A. 815] ; Heffron Construction Co. v. Glass, 32 O; C. C. 754 (13 N. S. 555).
Dismissed, no op., Roth Packing Co. v. Wainer, 87 O. S. 000; 57 Bull. 511.

Opinion:
SMITH, P. J.
Under the conflicting evidence in the above causé this court can not say that the verdict and judgment rendered thereon are against the weight of the evidence, nor that defendant in error was guilty of contributory negligence.
The jury no doubt considered the age of the plaintiff below and found under all the circumstances that he, a boy of tender years, was free from negligence.
We do not think there was prejudicial error relative to the evidence concerning the X-Ray photographs, and the court was correct in overruling the motions of plaintiff in error for an instructed verdict.
As there is no error in the record the judgment is affirmed.
Swing and Jones, JJ., concur.