Cincinnati v. Anderson

Decided October 15, 1899

Hamilton Circuit Court · decided 1899-10-15

NEGLIGENCE — EVIDENCE-PRACTICE. Smith, Swing and Giffin, JJ. 1. Negligence — Proof as to Place of Injury. The fact that in an action for personal injuries, sustained through the negligence of a city in maintaining a water plug in an unsafe condition, there is no direct proof that the street where the injury occurred is within the city, is not sufficient to defeat or reverse the judgment where the whole record clearly shows that such is the fact. 2. Evidence — General Conditions Irrelevant. In such action evidence as to the condition of water plugs generally throughout the city, or a custom of placing them, is not relevant to the condition of the plug complained of. 8. General Exceptions to Charge of Court. The amendment to sec. 5298, Rev. Stat., 93 O, L., 299, providing for a general exception to the charge of a court, does not affect pending actions.

Decided 1899-10-15

Giffin, J.

¶1This was an action for damages for personal injury sustained through the negligence of the city in maintaining a water plug in an un-cafe condition, and over which plaintiff stumbled and fell. Plaintiff in error claims there is no proof that McMillan street, the alleged place of the accident, is within the city of Cincinnati. While it is true that no witness testifies directly that McMillan street is in Cincinnati, yet the record as a vidiole clearly shows that such is the fact.

¶2There was'no error in excluding inquiry as to water plugs generally throughout the city. The issue was as to a particular one on McMillan street, and the condition of others, or a custom in placing them, was not relevant to the condition of this one at a certain time.

¶3The amendment of sec. 5298, Rev. Stat., 93 O. L., providing for a general exception to the charge of a court to a jury, does not affect pending actions. Section 79, Rev. Stat.

¶4Judgment affirmed.