Devou v. Hughes
Devou v. Hughes
Opinion of the Court
This was an action in the court of common pleas by Annie Hughes against William P. Devou for damages resulting from injuries received by Annie Plughes by falling into a cistern which was located upon the premises of said Devou. The gist of the action is thus set out in the amended petition of the plaintiff:
“Plaintiff, Annie Hughes, a colored girl, states that on or about the 28th day of July, 1908, her father for the use of himself and family, including plaintiff, rented from the defendant as a tenant from month to month, the second floor of the premises known and numbered as 620 West Fourth street, in the city of Cincinnati; that defendant was the owner and in charge of the premises herein re
At the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, defendant moved the court to instruct a verdict for the defendant, and this motion was renewed at the
The evidence clearly shows that the yard’was overgrown with weeds and grass, and it further shows that the cistern was concealed from view by this grass and weeds; but as to the covering of said cistern, which was alleged to be defective in that it was in an “unsafe, unsound, rotten and dangerous condition,” it is not clearly shown; in fact, all that was shown in regard to it was that part of the rim had been broken off. Whether by reason of this rim being broken the covering was displaced when the plaintiff stepped on it or whether it did not properly cover the cistern the evidence does not show. The defendant would have been liable, no doubt, if the evidence had shown either of these facts, but it must be evident that in order to sustain the judgment the evidence should show that the injury was caused by a defect in the cover, and that by simply proving that, the rim was broken does not go far enough in proving that the accident occurred by reason of the broken rim.
The special finding of the jury that the accident was caused by “negligence in not keeping the yard in proper condition” does not throw much light on the question for the reason that it does not point out the improper condition that the yard was in, even if the jury meant that the cistern was in the part of the yard that was not kept in proper condition.
The evidence showed that the injuries were very serious and permanent, and the amount of the judg
Cause remanded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings according to law.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.