Ohio Traction Co. v. Washington

Ohio Court of Appeals

Ohio Traction Co. v. Washington

6 Ohio App. 273, 28 Ohio C.A. 382, 1916 Ohio App. LEXIS 152

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 19, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 6 Ohio App. 273 (Ohio Traction Co. v. Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ohio Traction Co. v. Washington, 6 Ohio App. 273, 28 Ohio C.A. 382, 1916 Ohio App. LEXIS 152 (Ohio Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Jones, E. H., P. J.

The receipt of money by an injured employe from the state liability board of awards by virtue of the workmen’s compensation-law is not a bar to an action for damages against a person other than the employer whose negligence contributed to the injury, there being no provision [274]*274in said act making the remedy therein provided exclusive. The rule that settlement with one joint tort-feasor is a bar to recovery from the other has no application and cannot be invoked in such a case.

The presence of the piece of timber in the courtroom was within the discretion of the trial judge, and, while the prominence given it during the trial may have been' unusual, it was not error upon which a reviewing court could bottom a judgment of reversal.

We find no error in the proceedings in the superior court, and its judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Jones, Oliver B., and Gorman, JJ., concur.

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