McFadden v. Galena Shale, Tile & Brick Co.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 39524,39524 |
| Parties | , 39 O.O.2d 55 McFADDEN, Appellee, v. The GALENA SHALE, TILE AND BRICK CO. et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
The cause is now before this court on appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals, pursuant to allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Solsberry, Ahern & Butler and Alphonse P. Cincione, Columbus, for appellee.
Wiles, Doucher, Tressler, Martin & Ford, Columbus, for appellants.
Admittdly, the only grounds given by the Court of Appeals for its reversal were:
1. Error in failure to give two requested special instructions.
2. Error in sustaining defendant's motion to elect at the end of plaintiff's opening statement.
Admittedly, the two requested special instructions relate only to the issue of plaintiff's damages. There is no claim of error in submission of the issue of defendant Dove's claimed negligence to the jury. There is nothing to indicate that the jury did not base its verdict for Dove on a finding that defendant was not negligent. Hence, any error in refusing to give the two special instructions could not have prejudiced plaintiff. If, as its verdict indicates, the jury found defendant not negligent, it would not even have reached the issue of damages.
Furthermore, the jury verdict for the driver negatives the possibility of any prejudice to plaintiff in being required to elect whether to sue the driver or to sue his employer. If, as the jury found, the driver was not negligent, there could be no verdict against his employer.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and that of the Common Pleas Court affirmed.
Judgment reversed.
WHITE, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for SCHNEIDER, J.
* Section 2307.191, Revised Code, permitting joinder of the employee and employer did not become effective until after the judgment in the trial court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Flesher
...in order to support reversal of a judgment rendered against a party complaining of such error. (McFadden v. Galena Shale, Tile & Brick Co., 10 Ohio St.2d 70, 225 N.E.2d 229, approved and followed; Chesrown v. Bevier, 101 Ohio St. 282, 128 N.E. 94; Washington Fidelity National Ins. Co. v. He......
-
McCullough v. Spitzer Motor Ctr., Inc.
...was not prejudiced by the court's failure to give a punitive damages instruction. McFadden v. Galena Shale, Tile & Brick Co. (1987), 10 Ohio St.2d 70, 71, 39 O.O.2d 55, 55-56, 225 N.E.2d 229, 230. The trial court committed no error in advising the jury of its directed verdict on the punitiv......
-
Charles J. Mitchell and Karen Y. Mitchell v. Hyster Co. and Bode-Finn Co., 90-LW-0102
... ... See McFadden v ... Galena Shale, Tile and Brick Co. (1967), 10 ... ...
-
McGuire v. Ellis
...Code. Smith v. Flesher (1967), 12 Ohio St.2d 107, 233 N.E.2d 107 (paragraph two of the syllabus); McFadden v. Galena Shale, Tile & Brick Co. (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 70, 225 N.E.2d 229; Hallworth v. Republic Steel Corp. (1950), 153 Ohio St. 349, 91 N.E.2d 690. See Section 2309.59, Revised The ......