explaining that the Court’s decision in Siegfried v. Railroad Co., 50 Ohio St. 294 (1893) represents “the seminal Ohio case holding that a truly voluntary dismissal does not constitute a ‘fail[ure] otherwise than upon the merits’ for purpose of the savings statute.”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the Court’s decision in Siegfried v. Railroad Co., 50 Ohio St. 294 (1893) represents “the seminal Ohio case holding that a truly voluntary dismissal does not constitute a ‘fail[ure] otherwise than upon the merits’ for purpose of the savings statute.”
- defining “voluntary” as “proceeding . . . from one’s own choice or consent” (citation omitted)
- recognizing that Civ.R. 41[A][l][a] “forbids a plaintiff from unilaterally withdrawing by notice once trial has been commenced”
- stating that a dismissal without prejudice has no res judicata effect
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Holmes, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the syllabus, but I must dissent from the judgment because the judgment n.o.v. as entered by the trial court was a correct one based upon the law. The evidence showed that the proximate cause of the fall was a natural accumulation of ice which, under Ohio law, the appellee had no duty to remove. Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy-Berwick (1967), 11 Ohio St. 2d 38 .