Case Name: The John C. Roth Packing Company v. Julius Wainer, a Minor
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1912-08-03
Citations: 15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 166
Docket Number: 
Parties: The John C. Roth Packing Company v. Julius Wainer, a Minor.
Judges: Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 15
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
INJURY TO A BOY BY BEING RUN OVER. ON THE STREET.
Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
The John C. Roth Packing Company v. Julius Wainer, a Minor.
Decided, August 3, 1912.
Negligence — Weight of Evidence — Age of Infant Plaintiff an Element in Determining — Evidence as to X-Ray Photographs.
In an action for injuries to a boy twelve years of age, alleged to have been due to the negligence of the defendant, a reviewing court in weighing conflicting evidence will be influenced toward sustaining the judgment below in favor of the plaintiff by the consideration that the jury in determining the question of his contributory negligence no doubt had regard for Ms tender years.
Denis F. Gash, for plaintiff in error.
Max Levy, contra.
The pl-aintiff below, a boy of twelve years, was riding a bicycle on Ninth avenue, near Central avenue, Cincinnati, when he was run into by a three-horse team belonging to defendant which was being driven rapidly around the corner. He was thrown under the horses by the collision, and one of them 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.
Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.

Opinion:
Under the conflicting evidence in the above- cause 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.