Nestor v. Everlast Roofing, Inc., 3:17-cv-0093. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20181113f96
Filed: Nov. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2018
Summary: JUDGMENT ENTRY THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . This case came for trial before a jury commencing October 9, 2018. The jury answered Interrogatories as follows: • For Liability Interrogatory #1A, "Were the Defendants, Everlast Roofing, Inc. and/or James Dunkel negligent" the jury answered "YES." • For Liability Interrogatory #1B, "Was the Defendants' negligence a proximate cause or contributing cause of the collision" the jury answered "NO." Where the responses to the above were given,
Summary: JUDGMENT ENTRY THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . This case came for trial before a jury commencing October 9, 2018. The jury answered Interrogatories as follows: • For Liability Interrogatory #1A, "Were the Defendants, Everlast Roofing, Inc. and/or James Dunkel negligent" the jury answered "YES." • For Liability Interrogatory #1B, "Was the Defendants' negligence a proximate cause or contributing cause of the collision" the jury answered "NO." Where the responses to the above were given, ..
More
JUDGMENT ENTRY
THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge.
This case came for trial before a jury commencing October 9, 2018. The jury answered Interrogatories as follows:
• For Liability Interrogatory #1A, "Were the Defendants, Everlast Roofing, Inc. and/or James Dunkel negligent" the jury answered "YES."
• For Liability Interrogatory #1B, "Was the Defendants' negligence a proximate cause or contributing cause of the collision" the jury answered "NO."
Where the responses to the above were given, the jury signed and returned a general verdict in favor of Defendants James Dunkel and Everlast Roofing, Inc. Based on the above, the Court enters final judgment in favor of Defendants James Dunkel and Everlast Roofing, Inc.
Costs to be paid by Plaintiffs.
Source: Leagle
