Legal Opinion

Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 24, 1977No. 76-CA-7PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDown, J.

This appeal seeks a declaration entitling an employee to participate in the workmen’s compensation fund for injuries received in the public street separating the employer’s premises (i. e. the plant) and the employees’ parking lot provided by the employer for the employees’ optional use. We decline to so declare. Our analysis follows.

The employer-plaintiff-appellee, Becton, Dickinson & Company, in 1971, provided a parldng lot for the optional use of its employees. Walnut Street, a public street in Coshocton, separated the employee parking lot and the en trance to the employer’s plant. On…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Kasari v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Industrial Commission v. BarberOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Merz v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Frishkorn v. FlowersOhio Court of Appeals · 1971

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. P.B. Bell & Associates v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  2. Hill v. General Metal Heat Treating, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. Blair v. DaughertyOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
  4. P.B. Bell & Associates v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API