Legal Opinion

Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 20, 2012No. 2011-2013Published

1Opinion of the Court

[Cite as Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 134 Ohio St.3d 199,

2012-Ohio-5317.] HEWITT, APPELLEE, v. L.E. MYERS COMPANY, APPELLANT, ET AL. [Cite as Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 134 Ohio St.3d 199,

2012-Ohio-5317.] Workers’ compensation—Immunity of complying employer—Intentional tort by employer—R.C. 2745.01—“Equipment safety guard” construed. (No. 2011-2013—Submitted September 25, 2012—Decided November 20, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 96138,

2011-Ohio-5413. __________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT As used in R.C. 2745.01(C), “equipment safety guard” means a device…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State v. HairstonOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Services, L.L.C.Ohio Supreme Court · 2010

8 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