Toledo Cooker Co. v. Sniegowski

Ohio Supreme Court

Toledo Cooker Co. v. Sniegowski

136 N.E. 904, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 41, 105 Ohio St. 161, 1922 Ohio LEXIS 328

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 16, 1922

DocketNo. 16932

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 136 N.E. 904 (Toledo Cooker Co. v. Sniegowski) 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

Toledo Cooker Co. v. Sniegowski, 136 N.E. 904, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 41, 105 Ohio St. 161, 1922 Ohio LEXIS 328 (Ohio 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

Epitomized Opinion

Sniegowski was employed in the operation of a heavy punching press. While so employed, the press came down unexpectedly, and crushed his hand. He brought suit in the Court of Common Pleas, alleging violation of a lawful requirement upon the part of his employer, and that he had been peremp-torially ordered to work on a dangerous machine in a defective condition, wholly unguarded, in violation of 1027 GC. The Court of Common Pleas held against him on the law, the Court of Appeals reversed the Common Pleas, and the Supreme Court, in a short opinion, reversed the Common Pleas, on authority of Patten v. Aluminum Castings Co., 105 OS 1, which holds that this section of the code imposes only a common law duty, ordinary care and holds the employer only for common law liability.

Judge Wannamaker submits a long and strong dissenting opinion, arguing against the opinion of a majority of the court.

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

BY THE COURT:

Epitomized Opinion

Sniegowski was employed in the operation of a heavy punching press. While so employed, the press came down unexpectedly, and crushed his hand. He brought suit in the Court of Common Pleas, alleging violation of a lawful requirement upon the part of his employer, and that he had been peremp-torially ordered to work on a dangerous machine in a defective condition, wholly unguarded, in violation of 1027 GC. The Court of Common Pleas held against him on the law, the Court of Appeals reversed the Common Pleas, and the Supreme Court, in a short opinion, reversed the Common Pleas, on authority of Patten v. Aluminum Castings Co., 105 OS 1, which holds that this section of the code imposes only a common law duty, ordinary care and holds the employer only for common law liability.

Judge Wannamaker submits a long and strong dissenting opinion, arguing against the opinion of a majority of the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 N.E. 904, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 41, 105 Ohio St. 161, 1922 Ohio LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toledo-cooker-co-v-sniegowski-ohio-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack