From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Department Stores Co. v. McBride

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 14, 1931
124 Ohio St. 264 (Ohio 1931)

Opinion

No. 22975

Decided October 14, 1931.

Negligence — Store company, operating escalator, a common carrier — Duty to exercise highest degree of care.

ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county.

Messrs. McKeehan, Merrick, Arter Stewart, Mr. A.M. Van Duzer and Mr. Thomas V. Koykka, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Burgert Stearns and Messrs. Dunlap, Stephens Stephens, for defendant in error.


Marion McBride sued the May Department Stores Company to recover damages for personal injuries received by her while riding on a moving stairway, known as an escalator, owned and operated by the store company in its store. McBride alleged that the accident was caused by the negligence of the store company. Verdict and judgment in favor of the store company were rendered in the trial court. The Court of Appeals, on error, reversed and remanded for error of the trial court in charging the jury that ordinary care was the full measure of the store company's obligation to McBride.

This court holds, on the facts that are not in dispute, that the store company was a common carrier of persons, and that its duty to such persons while so carrying them was to exercise the highest degree of care of which the situation was reasonably susceptible.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

MARSHALL, C.J., JONES, MATTHIAS, DAY, ALLEN and ROBINSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Department Stores Co. v. McBride

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 14, 1931
124 Ohio St. 264 (Ohio 1931)
Case details for

Department Stores Co. v. McBride

Case Details

Full title:THE MAY DEPARTMENT STORES Co. v. McBRIDE

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Oct 14, 1931

Citations

124 Ohio St. 264 (Ohio 1931)
178 N.E. 12

Citing Cases

White v. Sears, Roebuck and Company

Most such cases have involved children getting their fingers caught in the escalator, ladies getting their…

Welch v. Rollman Sons Co.

Such a contention ignores the evidence which demonstrated an injury to plaintiff caused by an agency wholly…