Opinion
No. 37306
Decided April 18, 1962.
Appeal — On questions of law — Alleged errors not set forth or argued in briefs — May be disregarded — Nothing for court to review — Judgment affirmed.
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Lucas County.
This action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas to recover for personal injuries and property damage sustained when plaintiff's automobile collided with a hog on the highway. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and judgment was entered on the verdict.
The Court of Appeals, on appeal, found that there was no substantial evidence in the record tending to prove negligence on the part of the defendants, affirmed the judgment and remanded the cause for execution for costs.
The judges of the Court of Appeals, finding that the judgment on which they agreed is in conflict with a judgment pronounced upon the same question by the Court of Appeals of the Eighth Appellate District in the case of Sutfin, Admr., v. Burton, 91 Ohio App. 177, certified the record to this court for review and final determination.
Mr. Joseph A. Cannon and Mr. Robert Z. Kaplan, for appellant.
Messrs. Marshall, Melhorn, Bloch Belt and Mr. Wilbur C. Jacobs, for appellees.
At most, plaintiff in his assignment of errors claims that the Common Pleas Court erred in entering judgment for the defendant upon the jury verdict and that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming that judgment (1) because it is "against the weight of the evidence," (2) because it is "contrary to law" and (3) because of conflict with Sutfin, Admr., v. Burton, 91 Ohio App. 177, and Section 951.02, Revised Code.
This court will not consider the weight of the evidence. Section 2505.31, Revised Code.
In support of the other claimed errors, plaintiff contends that he established a prima facie case. However, plaintiff's case was submitted to the jury, so that these claims of error can be sustained only by reliance either upon error in the charge of the court as given or upon error in the failure of the court to charge as requested. In argument but not in his brief, plaintiff contended that the trial court erred in refusing to give his special request to charge No. 9. This special request is not even quoted in plaintiff's brief in this court. Furthermore, plaintiff contended in argument but not in his brief that there was error in the charge on contributory negligence as given. However, the brief does not even set forth the portion of the charge claimed to be erroneous. Under the circumstances, it does not appear that there is anything for this court to review. As stated in Section 2505.21, Revised Code, "errors not specifically pointed out in the record and separately argued by brief may be disregarded" and "all errors assigned and briefed shall be passed upon [by] the court."
The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL, COLLIER and O'NEILL, JJ., concur.
COLLIER, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of HERBERT, J.