Legal Opinion

George v. City of Youngstown

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1942No. 28694PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.

The plaintiff predicates his claim upon the negligence of the defendant city in failing to comply with the specific requirement of Section 1027, G-eneral Code, which reads in part as follows:

“The owners and operators of shops and factories shall make suitable provisions to prevent injury to persons who use or come in contact with machinery therein or any part thereof as follows: * * *
“7. They shall guard all saws, wood-cutting, wood-shaping and all other dangerous machinery.”

In the case of State, ex rel. Post, v. Industrial Commission, 127 Ohio St., 187, 187 N. E., 719, this court held that…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Trumbull Cliffs Furnace Co. v. ShachovskyOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  2. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Guy v. Arthur H. Thomas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Daniels v. MacGregor Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Lockhart v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
  4. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1952
  5. Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2014

2 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