Legal Opinion

Landrum v. Middaugh

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1927No. 20445PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

It is the contention of the plaintiff in error that, since Middaugh applied to and accepted from the Industrial Commission compensation for his injury, he cannot maintain an action against his foreman to recover damages for the same injury. Landrum urges that, as foreman, he was acting within the course of his employment, and within the scope of his authority when the injury occurred, and that hence he does not hold the same position with reference to liability as if he had been an independent third party not connected with the industry, who willfully or negligently caused the injury. He does…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Trumbull Cliffs Furnace Co. v. ShachovskyOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Churchill v. StephensSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1917
  3. Webster v. StewartMichigan Supreme Court · 1920

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Feitig v. ChalkleySupreme Court of Virginia · 1946
  2. Ransom v. HanerAlaska Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Kowcun v. BybeeOregon Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Morrow v. Hume, Admx.Ohio Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Nolan v. DaleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1952

15 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