
    No. 136
    SIFF v. M. O’NEIL CO.
    Ohio Court of Appeals, Summit County
    No. 587.
    Dec. 19, 1922
    NEGLIGENCE — PERSONAL INJURY — (1) Automobile — Concurring negligence — Injury caused solely by the negligence of person injured not ground for suit — (2) Failure of court to give which, though proper were not requested, is nc‘i error — (3) General exceptions; questions raised by.
    Error to Summit Court of Common Pleas
   WASHBURN. P. J.

Epitomized Opionion

Jean Siff, a young child, while riding in hex father’s automobile, received an injury as the result of a collision with a truck belonging to the O’Neh Co. The evidence tends to show that the driver ol Siff’s machine was negligent and that the driver o'l the truck was not negligent. The court charged th<x jury that if the truck driver’s negligence was tht proximate cause of the injury to Siff, the latte* could recover, but if the injury Was solely caused by the negligence of the driver of the automobile, she could not recover. Siff claims that it was error not to charge that in the concurring negligence of both drivers, Siff could recover. Such charge was not requested.

Attorneys — -Burch, Bacon & Denlinger, for Siff-, Rockwell & Grant, for O’Neil Co.

Held:

1. If the accident resulting in the injury was caused by the sole negligence of the driver of the automobile in which the person injured was riding, such person could not recover damages, but would be entitled to recover, although the negligence of the driver of the car she was in contributed to the in jury.

2. If a charge as given is free from error, failure to give other instructions which might have been properly given is not error.

3. A general exception to a charge i’aises only the question of the correctness of the given charge, and raises no question for failure to-give the charge, which should have been given; this must be done by request to charge and exception to the refusal te-so charge.  