Case Name: BOSWELL v. N. O. T. & L. CO.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-01-02
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 314
Docket Number: No. 596
Parties: BOSWELL v. N. O. T. & L. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 314–314

Head Matter:
No. 280
BOSWELL v. N. O. T. & L. CO.
Ohio Court of Appeals, Summit County
No. 596.
Jan. 2, 1923
NEGLIGENCE-^ — (1) Objection to incompetent question rightfully sustained — (2) Verdict not manifestly against weight of evidence will not be dis-tubed — (3) Claim of misconduct of lower court found unjustified — (4) Unduly long charge by jury not necessarily prejudicial. .
Error to Summit Court of Common Pleas
Attorneys — Carl H. Myers and C. C. McCarment, for Boswell; Mather, Nesbitt & Willkin, for Traction Co.

Opinion:
PARDEE, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Boswell, while driving his automobile in Canton, collided with a car belonging to the Traction Com-pnay and suffered damages as a result of the collision. He alleged negligence on the part of the Traction Company, while it claimed that the accident was the result either of contributory negligence or the sole negligence of Boswell. Judgment for the Traction Company in the lower court, and Boswell prosecutes error to this court. Held by Court of Appeals in affirming judgment'for the Tractions Company.
1. A question, asked the motorman of a street car, whether he knew that a certain corner was a dangerous one, would not aid the jury in determining which party was negligent, and the question was incompetent.
2. A verdict not manifestly against the weight of the evidence will not be disturbed.
3. A claim that the trial judge indicated to .the jury what he thought the verdict should be, was found to have no basis.
4. Although a charge is unduly long, and contains some repetitions, as well as unnecessary matter, it is not necessarily prejudicial and is not incompatible with a fair and impartial trial.