Toledo Cooker Co. v. Sniegowski

136 N.E. 904, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 41, 105 Ohio St. 161, 1922 Ohio LEXIS 328
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 16, 1922·No. No. 16932·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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

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

136 N.E. 904 (Toledo Cooker Co. v. Sniegowski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cleveland v. State (Slip Opinion)
2019 Ohio 3820 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2019)
City of Rocky River v. State Employment Relations Board
539 N.E.2d 103 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1989)
State ex rel. The Howard Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission
148 Ohio St. (N.S.) 165 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1947)
State, Ex Rel. v. Ind. Com.
74 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1947)
Ohio Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Fender
1 Ohio Law. Abs. 467 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1923)
Navracel v. Cudahy Packing Co.
191 N.W. 659 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1922)