Kohlmayer v. Keller
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSchneider, J.
At the outset, we observe that a reversal would be required in any event, by reason of the trial court’s submission of a special instruction to the effect that an injury occurs in the “course of employment . . . while the workman is engaged in the performance of the duty he is employed to perform.”
An injured employee need not be in the actual performance of his duties in order for his injury to be in the “course of employment,” and thus compensable. Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 18, 23; Sebek v. Bronze Co. (1947), 148 Ohio St. 693, 698. Statements to the contrary…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ricciardi v. Damar Products Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
- Sebek v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1947
- Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1967
- Industrial Commission v. AhernOhio Supreme Court · 1928
- Sica v. Retail Credit Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1967
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Fisher v. MayfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
- Guy v. Arthur H. Thomas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
- Beauchesne v. David London & Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1977
- Delker v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1989
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.