Case Name: City of Cincinnati v. William Lawrence Sturr
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1913-02
Citations: 21 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 479
Docket Number: 
Parties: City of Cincinnati v. William Lawrence Sturr.
Judges: Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 21
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
DRIVER. INJURED BY BEING THROWN FROM HIS WAGON.
Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.
City of Cincinnati v. William Lawrence Sturr.
Decided, February, 1913.
Negligence — Injury to Driver Alleged to Nave Been Due to Hole in Street — Care Required in Driving a Blind Horse — Liability of the Municipality.
The driver of a blind horse who was thrown from his wagon and injured by the jolt caused by a hole in the street which was plainly visible, is without recourse against the municipality.
Coleman Avery, for the city.
Scott Bonham, contra.
The plaintiff below recovered a judgment against the city for $1,600, on account of permanent injuries from being thrown from his wagon on Spring Grove avenue, near Terrace Place. It was alleged that the accident was due to a hole in the street, which he did not see although he was driving carefully.
Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.
Reversed by the Supreme Court and the judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed; opinion of common pleas court reported in 9 O. L. R., p. 6, where it is held that—
“Whether a hole in the street into which the plaintiff drove his wagon and was injured, was visible and should have been seen by him is a question for the jury, and their finding will not be set aside unless manifestly against the weight of the evidence.”

Opinion:
It is manifest from the record that defendant in error was guilty of contributory negligence. He was driving a blind horse at the time of the accident, and the hole in the street was plainly Ausible. Under the circumstances he did not exercise all the care that was necessary.
The court, therefore, erred in overruling the motions of the plaintiff in error for an instructed verdict, at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and also at the close of all the evidence. Tn this view of the case it is unnecessary to consider other errors assigned.
The judgment below is reversed, and judgment for plaintiff in error will be entered in this court.