Sebek v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co.

Counsel for plaintiff, in their briefs and upon oral argument, in seeking a reversal of the-judgment of the Court of Appeals and in support of plaintiff’s right to maintain an action for damages-against the defendant, urge two propositions: (1) That plaintiff did not sustain an “injury” within the-contemplation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Ohio, and (2) that if she did, it was not an “injury” suffered in the course of and arising out of her employment within the purview of such act.

As to the first proposition, this court laid down the following principle of law in the first paragraph…