Ohio Supreme Court, 1923

Akron (City) v. Butler

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 12, 1923 · Robinson

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 8; 108 Ohio St. 122; 140 N.E. 324; 1923 Ohio LEXIS 227

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Zangerle v. City of Cleveland (Ohio 1945)
Doe v. Contemporary Servs. Corp. (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
Hart v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 1963)
Broughton v. City of Cleveland (Ohio 1957)
Wolf v. City of Columbus (Ohio Ct. App. 1954)
Niblock v. Salt Lake City (Utah 1941)
Matthews v. City of Detroit (Mich. 1939)
Villalpando v. City of Cheyenne (Wyo. 1937)
Johnson v. Board of County Road Commissioners (Mich. 1931)
City of Hamilton v. Dilley (Ohio Ct. App. 1928)
Gorman v. City of Cleveland (Ohio Ct. App. 1927)
In re Guardianship of Kindell (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
Huntington National Bank v. Toland (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
Witt v. Ward (Ohio Ct. App. 1989)
Hack v. City of Salem (Ohio 1963)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ROBINSON, J.

Epitomized Opinion

First Publication of this Opinion

Butler was struck and injured by a truck *9belonging to the City of Akron and operated by the street cleaning department. At the time of the accident Butler was returning from a trip to the railway station, where he had to deliver a broom shell to be shipped “for a sample.” Butler recovered judgment in the Common Pleas, which judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The City brought error proceedings in the Supreme Court. Held:

Attorneys — H. M.. Hagelbarger, Law Director, Akron, and C. T. Moore, Columbus, for City; Prank N. Sweitzer, Canton, and Musser, Kimber & Huffman, Akron, for Butler.

The truck was under the management of department whose duties with reference to street cleaning come within the general classification of governmental functions, but whose duties with reference to parks and public property come within the general classification of proprietary functions. The only evidence as to the mission of the truck being that the broom shell was to be shipped “for a sample,” no inference as to which of the two functions the city was engaged in, can reasonably be made. The purpose of the shipment was decisive. Plaintiff thus failed to furnish any proof of the liability of the city. Judgment was reversed and judgment entered for city.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.