Pence v. Kettering
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.
The single assignment of error here urged by Pence is that the trial court should not have directed a verdict.
This case presents an anomalous situation in that the employer claims the employee was in the course of his employment, while the employee himself asserts he was not.
Was transportation a part of the employment contract between Pence and Kettering?
Both counsel insist that there is little direct conflict in the evidence; however, each strenuously contends that the only reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom are such as to require a directed verdict in favor of his client.
The…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Keesecker v. G. M. McKelvey Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943
- Bennett v. Sinclair Refining Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
- Durbin v. Humphrey Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938
- Sack v. A. R. Nunn & SonOhio Supreme Court · 1934
- Union Gas & Electric Co. v. HillOhio Court of Appeals · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.