Schickling v. Post Publishing Co.

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 618

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Schickling v. Post Publishing Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 115 Ohio St. 589 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 5, 1926·No. No. 19951·Published

Opinion

This action was brought originally by Joseph Schickling an infant against the Post Publishing Company in the Hamilton Common Pleas for damages sustained for personal injuries.

It appears that the driver of an automobile struck and ran over Schickling. The defense was that the party driving the automobile was an independent contractor.

The judgment of the Common Pleas in favor of Schickling was reversed by the Court of Appeals for error in the Common Pleas refusing to direct a verdict, on the ground that the evidence disclosed that the driver of the automobile was an independent contractor.

Schickling in the Supreme Court contends:

1. That the relationship of master and servant existed.

2. That the Post Publishing Co. was the employer of .the driver of the automobile and therefore liable for damages.

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

This action was brought originally by Joseph Schickling an infant against the Post Publishing Company in the Hamilton Common Pleas for damages sustained for personal injuries.

It appears that the driver of an automobile struck and ran over Schickling. The defense was that the party driving the automobile was an independent contractor.

Schickling in the Supreme Court contends:

1. That the relationship of master and servant existed.

2. That the Post Publishing Co. was the employer of .the driver of the automobile and therefore liable for damages.

Schickling v. Post Publishing Co., 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 618 (Ohio 1926).

Pincite

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 618 (Schickling v. Post Publishing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.