Case Name: TAYLOR v. HARTZELL
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-03-21
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 661
Docket Number: 
Parties: TAYLOR v. HARTZELL
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
No. 690
TAYLOR v. HARTZELL
Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist., Mahoning County
Decided March 21, 1924
683. JURY — Juror not guilty of misconduct by conversing about liis wife to relative of party.
225. CHARGE TO JURY.
Failure to define “accident” in automobile negligence case not prejudicial.
829. NEGLIGENCE.
Error in court’s charge on contributory negligence not reversable when jury finds for plaintiff on that feature of case.

Opinion:
POLLOCK, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Published Only In Ohio Law Abstract
This was an action for personal injuries. Freda Taylor was riding in the front seat of a Ford car operated by her husband, when the Ford was struck by another car at a street intersection. During the trial one of the relatives talked to one of the jurors about the condition of the latter's wife, who was then in the hospital. No witnesses testified except Taylor and her husband and Hartzell as to the rate of speed that the two cars were going at the time of the collision. The jury returned a verdict for Taylor, whereupon Hartzell prosecuted error. In sustaining the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:
Attorneys — Emmons & Emmons, for Taylor; Henderson & Barrett, for Hartzell; all of Youngstown.
1. As nothing was said between the juror and the relatives of the defendant of a prejudicial nature, and as counsel for the plaintiff did not object to proceedings with the juror, no prejudicial error was committed in this respect.
2. As the jury is presumed to know the meaning of common words, a failure to define the word "accident" was not prejudicial error.
3. As the jury found in answer to a special interrogatory that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, the plaintiff cannot complain of any error in the court's charge in that respect.
4. It cannot be said that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence.