Case Name: COOPER RUBBER CO. v. FRITZ
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-02-19
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 376
Docket Number: No. 4232
Parties: COOPER RUBBER CO. v. FRITZ
Judges: Vickery, P. J., Sullivan and Levine, JJ.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 376–376

Head Matter:
No. 371
COOPER RUBBER CO. v. FRITZ
Ohio Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
No. 4232.
Feb. 19, 1923
Tliis opinion -has not been published except in Abstract
RÉS IPSA LOQUITUR — (1) Doctrine of, cannot be ' applied where there are two defendants. , Epitomized Opinion
, • .Attorneys — W.-W. Worline, for Rubber Company; Squire, Sanders ;& -Dempsey, for Cleve. Ry. Co.; M. M. Guzik, for Fritz. -
Error to Municipal Court of Cleveland;
Reversed
Vickery, P. J., Sullivan and Levine, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CÚRIAM.
Fritz parked his automobile in front of the Rubber Company's establishment and while it was there a truck belonging to the Rubber Company and a street car belonging .to the Cleveland Railway Co. came into collision, with the result that Fritz's car was injured. Fritz recovered damages in the lower court and this action is brought to reverse it. Held by the Court of Appeals in reversing the verdict for Fritz:
1. It seems to have been the theory of the court below that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied. The doctrine would certainly apply if there were but one defendant, but when there are two defendant's it' is possible that one of them was not negligent at all and.a.verdict against that defendant'would be unjust. Case remanded for a new trial' with the suggestion that evidence be secured fixing the liability.