Case Name: The Cuyahoga Lumber Co. v. Harry H. Brinkman
Court: Cuyahoga County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1906-01-19
Citations: 16 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 181
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Cuyahoga Lumber Co. v. Harry H. Brinkman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 16
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
BAD JUDGMENT EXERCISED BY A DRIVER.
Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.
The Cuyahoga Lumber Co. v. Harry H. Brinkman.
Decided, January 19, 1906.
Collision Between Cm- ancl Wagon — Oioner of Wagon Liable.
A judgment against a lumber company and in favor of a motorman on a street car who was injured by collision of his car with the lumber company’s wagon, will not be reversed on the weight of the evidence, when there is evidence tending to show that the driver of the lumber wagon was calculating upon a nicety when he turned in front of the approaching ear, and should have used better judgment and waited until the car got by, for it could not turn out of the track, while the wagon could.
Smith, Taft & Arter, for plaintiff in error.
H. E. Parsons, contra.

Opinion:
Winch, J.; Marvin, J., and Henry, J.,
concur.
Defendant in error was a motorman, operating a street ear-on Euclid avenue; he was coming west on that street on a certain day in August, 1901, when a wagon loaded with lumber belonging to plaintiff-in error, coming .from the west on the south side of the street, turned suddenly across the track at Russell avenue and in front of the car which the .motorman was operating, that a collision occtirred and the motorman was hurt. He sued the lumber company and recovered judgment. The lumber company asks us to set this judgment aside because, as it alleges, it is not sustained by sufficient evidence. This is the only reason urged in this court for a reversal.
We have carefully read all the evidence given by the eye witnesses to the accident. There was evidence tending to show that the driver of the lumber wagon was negligent; there was evidence tending to show that the motonnan was negligent; there was evidence tending to show that both were negligent.
Evidently the jury believed that the driver of the lumber wagon was calculating upon a nicety when he turned in front of the approaching car, and should have used better judgment and waited until the car got by, for it could not turn but of the track, while the wagon could. Upon this theory the judgment is sustainable and we are unable to say that the evidence does not sustain it.
It was a close case on the facts, and the opinion of the twelve men who weighed the facts should not be set aside, it being conceded that the defendant below had a fair trial.
Judgment affirmed.