Legal Opinion

MTD Products, Inc. v. Robatin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1991No. 90-1236PublishedCited by 83 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert R. Brown, J.

The sole issue before us is whether Robatin’s injury was received “in the course of, and arising out of,” his employment, thus allowing him to participate in workers’ compensation pursuant to R.C. Chapter 4123. For the following reasons we hold that Robatin is not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits and overrule Littlefield v. Pillsbury Co. *68(1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 389, 6 OBR 439, 453 N.E.2d 570, to the extent that it conflicts with our opinion herein.

I

Appellant MTD asserts that the court of appeals erred when it held that Robatin’s right-hand turn into the congested entranceway of MTD’s…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Fisher v. MayfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Lord v. DaughertyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Bralley v. DaughertyOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Littlefield v. Pillsbury Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Industrial Commission v. BarberOhio Supreme Court · 1927

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by83 opinions

  1. Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid-Ohio (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Fletcher v. Northwest Mechanical Contractors, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Freeman v. BrooksOhio Court of Appeals · 2003

78 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API