Case Name: Josephine Heils v. The Cincinnati Traction Company
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1911-11-25
Citations: 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 384
Docket Number: 
Parties: Josephine Heils v. The Cincinnati Traction Company.
Judges: Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 14
Pages: 384–384

Head Matter:
INJURY TO PASSENGER STEPPING FROM CAR INTO HOLE IN THE STREET.
Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
Josephine Heils v. The Cincinnati Traction Company.
Decided, November 25, 1911.
Parties — Joinder of, in Action for Negligence — Torts which are Ooncur- ■ rent and Related hut are not Joint.
A traction company and a municipality are improperly joined as parties defendant, where the action is for injuries to the plaintiff sustained in stepping from a car into a hole in the street.
The plaintiff sued for $10,000 damages on account of injuries received in alighting from a car on Spring Grove avenue. Plaintiff stepped into a hole twelve inches deep in the street, and was thrown violently to the ground. She charged negligence against the traction company in stopping the car directly over the hole, and against the city in failing to keep the street in repair and also in failing to have lighted a street lamp at that point, which if lighted would have disclosed the hole to plaintiff before she stepped from the car into it.
H. A. Reeve, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. H. Warrington, contra.
Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.

Opinion:
We think the demurrer of the Cincinnati Traction Company filed to the petition of plaintiff in error was properly sustained by the trial court.
While perhaps under the allegations of the petition the acts of negligence complained of against the traction company and the city of Cincinnati are such as constitute concurrent and related torts, yet fhe same are not joint, being independent in character, and therefore the defendants are not in law joint tort feasors. Morris v. Woodburn, 57 O. S., 330; Village of Mineral City v. Gilbow et al, 81 O. S., 263.
The action of the court upon the demurrer is correct and the judgment is affirmed.