Foundry Appliance Co. v. Ratliff

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 362
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Foundry Appliance Co. v. Ratliff. Read the opinion of the Court — 113 Ohio St. 1
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1925·No. No. 18937·Published

Opinion

MATTHIAS, J.

. . 1. By virtue of the provisions of Sections 1465-61 and 1465-93, General Code (108 O. L. 316,324), all minor employes of employers complying with the Workmen’s Compensation Act are brought within the provisions of that act.

2. The provisions of Section 1465-76, General Code, that, “The defendant shall be entitled to plead the defense of contributory negligence” is available to an employer, who has complied with the Workmen’s Compensation Act, in a suit brought under favor of that section to recover damages for the injury or death of any such employe.

Judgment reversed.

Marshall, CJ., Jones, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.

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

Foundry Appliance Co. v. Ratliff, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 362 (Ohio 1925).

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 362 (Foundry Appliance Co. v. Ratliff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.