Lobdell Car Wheel Co. v. Subielski
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Rice, J.,
delivering the opinion of the court:
The question presented by the record is whether or not the claimant (granting that he did not wear goggles at the time of the accident) was guilty of willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance provided for his protection by the employer. Under the authority of the case of Rudnick v. White Bros., 7 Boyce 576, 109 Atl. 881, the question seems to be a mixed one of law and fact, and the claimant does not otherwise contend. In determining whether or not an injury to an employee has or has not been due to willful misconduct requires that…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Burns's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Great Western Power Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Wick v. GunnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Nickerson's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Bay Shore Laundry Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Marley v. Palmyra Bor.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1983
- Lloyd v. JeffersonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1999
- Associated Industries of Alabama, Inc. v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1975
- Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc. v. ThaxtonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1934
- Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. GreerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.