Case Name: Cincinnati Traction Company v. John Ruthman
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1912-08-03
Citations: 15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cincinnati Traction Company v. John Ruthman.
Judges: Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 15
Pages: 191–192

Head Matter:
REQUIREMENTS OF A CHARGE TO A JURY.
Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
Cincinnati Traction Company v. John Ruthman.
Decided, August 3, 1912.
Charge of Court — Relating to Negligence and Carelessness — Prejudicial Error in Failing to Define the Issues and Elucidate the Law Applicable Thereto — Burden of Proof
Both parties to an action are entitled to a plain statement to the jury of the issues presented, together with a definite and unam-. biguous statement of the law as applicable to the case made by the proofs, and failure to give such a charge constitutes reversible error, as does also the reading of the pleadings to the jury without defining the issues.
Kinkead & Rogers, for plaintiff in error.
Thos. L. Michie and Frank Seinsheimer, contra.
Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.

Opinion:
It is error for the trial court to read the pleadings to the jury without defining the issues. R. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 79 O. S., 586.
It is also error for a court to charge the jury, " It is for you to determine from all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time, whether there was this alleged negligence and carelessness on the part of the defendant whereby, except for this negligence and carelessness, the collision would not have occurred. The defendant pleads that the accident, if it occurred, was due to the negligence and carelessness of the plaintiff," without defining what "this negligence and carelessness" is, as alleged in the petition, and particularly in not explaining to the jury what in law'- constitutes "negligence and carelessness."
A charge to the jury should be a definite, plain and an unambiguous statement of the law as applicable to the case made by the proofs. Parmelee v. Adolph, 28 O. S., 10.
It is also error for the court in charging the jury to propound to them certain questions, as for instance: "Was the plaintiff exercising due care, the care which an ordinarily prudent man would exhibit in driving his horse along Freeman avenue at the time and in the manner disclosed in the evidence?" and other similar questions pertaining to the evidence in the case without instructing the jury as to the effect thereof, should they find either affirmatively or negatively in respect to such questions or facts, and what the legal result thereof would be.
It is also error for the court in defining the burden of proof to instruct the jury that:
"By the burden of proof is meant that fair preponderance of the evidence which should be given to its merits and worth, and not necessarily to the number of witnesses on either side. ' '
Counsel for defendant in error admits that the matters set out herein are erroneous but claims they are not prejudicial. In this we can not agree, as both parties to a suit are entitled to a. plain and distinct statement of the issues in the case together with a lucid exposition of the law applicable to those issues and the proofs.
For tbe above reasons the judgment below is reversed.