Daniels v. MacGregor Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Daniels v. MacGregor Co.

31 Ohio Law Rep. 26

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 21, 1965

Docket38914

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Ohio Law Rep. 26 (Daniels v. MacGregor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniels v. MacGregor Co., 31 Ohio Law Rep. 26 (Ohio 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Taft, Chief Justice.

Where an employer employs an employee with the understanding that the employee is to be paid only by the employer and at a certain hourly rate to work for a customer of the employer and where it is understood that tire customer is to have the right to control the manner or means of performing the work, such employee in doing that work is an employee of the customer within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act; and, where such customer has complied with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he will not be liable to respond in damages for any injury received by such employee in the course of or arising out of that work for such customer. (Section 35 of Article II of the Constitution and Section 4123.74, Revised Code, applied.)

Judgment affirmed.

Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Taft, Chief Justice.

Where an employer employs an employee with the understanding that the employee is to be paid only by the employer and at a certain hourly rate to work for a customer of the employer and where it is understood that tire customer is to have the right to control the manner or means of performing the work, such employee in doing that work is an employee of the customer within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act; and, where such customer has complied with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he will not be liable to respond in damages for any injury received by such employee in the course of or arising out of that work for such customer. (Section 35 of Article II of the Constitution and Section 4123.74, Revised Code, applied.)

Judgment affirmed.

Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Ohio Law Rep. 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-macgregor-co-ohio-1965.