Case Name: The Cincinnati Traction Company v. Irene Holliday
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1909-12
Citations: 13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 367
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Cincinnati Traction Company v. Irene Holliday.
Judges: Smith, J.; Hipeen, P. J., and Swing, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 13
Pages: 367–368

Head Matter:
INJURIES CAUSING A MISCARRIAGE.
Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
The Cincinnati Traction Company v. Irene Holliday.
Decided, December, 1909.
Negligence — Resulting in Injuries and Miscarriage — Competency of Evidence.
In an action for damages resulting in injuries alleged to have resulted in a miscarriage, evidence relating to the miscarriage in order to he made competent must connect the miscarriage with the accident.
Smith Hickenlooper, for plaintiff in error.
Darby & Benedict, contra.
The plaintiff below was awarded $300 damages on account of injuries sustained by her in being thrown to the ground by the premature starting of a summer car, from which she was attempting to alight. She alleged that she sustained a miscarriage in consequence of her injuries.
Smith, J.; Hipeen, P. J., and Swing, J., concur.

Opinion:
While the evidence as disclosed by the record in the above case is quite conflicting we can not say that the verdict and judgment if the court is not sustained by the weight thereof, nor do. we think that the verdict of the jury is a compromise. There is nothing in the record to indicate this except the question asked by a juror, and the court distinctly told him that anything of this bind would not be allowed to go them and that the question was entirely immaterial.
We see no error in the court admitting evidence as to the question of miscarriage, as he stated he would not permit it to go to the jury unless it was connected up with the accident, and we think this is sufficiently done, as the doctor testifies that, the first miscarriage would more than likely have some effect, on plaintiff in error, having the second miscarriage, and that the-second "miscarriage can be attributéd to the first one so far as the. accident caused the first and thus was created the "habit or tendency to miscarry again. There was no error in the court overruling the motion to make the petition more definite and certain in regard to the nature and extent of the serious internal injuries of a permanent nature alleged in the petition.
We find no error in the general charge of the court and believe that the case, as submitted thereon and the special charge asked by defendant in error was properly decided by the jury.
.Judgment affirmed.