TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Cochran

The Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Cochran.

Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Cochran, 153 N.E. 116 (Ohio Ct. App. 1923)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 16, 1923
Docket
No. 2225
Judges
Burchwalter
Citations
153 N.E. 11620 Ohio App. 1083 Ohio Law. Abs. 711923 Ohio App. LEXIS 189

Opinion of the Court — Burchwalter

BURCHWALTER, J.

Epitomized Opinion Original action was for damages in the Hamilton Common Pleas; brought by Irene Cochran against The Cincinnati Traction Co. and The Norfolk and Western Railway Co. for injuries received as a result of the joint negligence of said companies. Cochran obtained judgment for $3000: and error is prosecuted to reverse judgment.

The following are the grounds of error alleged by plaintiffs:

1. Verdict of jury was illegal because of apportionment of damages, the judgment being joint.

2. Lower court erred in overruling motion of Railway Co. to dismiss it from cause.

3. The verdict was excessive.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. The jury in its verdict inserted the words “equally divided” as to the damages assessed against both companies. These words were surplusage and it was not reversible error to enter joint judgment on such a verdict.

2. Evidence showed that negligence of Traction Co. together which that of Railway Co. created the situation which resulted in the injury of Cochran. There was sufficient evidence of negligence against the Railway Co. to warrant the submission of the case to the jury.

3.Verdict and judgment are against the weight of evidence. The evidence will not support a verdict exceeding $2000.

If Cochran remits $1000 from the judgment it will be affirmed; otherwise judgment will be reversed on the weight of the evidence. Judgment accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1966: 12000: 219662026peak 2000 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Erik Conte v. General Housewares Corporation, Dayton Power & Light Company215 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2000)
  2. Gilday v. Hauchwit219 A.2d 873 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1966)
  3. Conte v. Gen Housewares CorpNo. 99-4137 (6th Cir. June 14, 2000)

Most recent

  1. Erik Conte v. General Housewares Corporation, Dayton Power & Light Company215 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2000)
  2. Conte v. Gen Housewares CorpNo. 99-4137 (6th Cir. June 14, 2000)
  3. Gilday v. Hauchwit219 A.2d 873 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list