Legal Opinion

Brecount v. Procter & Gamble Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1957No. 35056Published

1Opinion of the CourtHeRbeet, J.

We consider first the issue on which the Court of Appeals certified this cause.

The defendant has maintained throughout that the trial court should have charged the jury that, “unless they find that plaintiff’s loss of vision is at least 25 per cent, the jury will find for the defendant,” and contends that failure to do so constitutes reversible error.

As applicable to this case, Section 1465-80, General Code (Section 4123.57, Eevised Code), provides in part:

“Partial disability compensation shall be paid as follows:

*480i 6 * # *

“ (b) In all cases included in the schedule in paragraph (c) hereof,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Stevens v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Couk v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1941
  3. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1929
  4. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Noggle v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1935

11 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