Richardson v. Mehan
Decision Date | 20 January 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 81-641,81-641 |
Citation | 430 N.E.2d 927,23 O.O.3d 90,69 Ohio St.2d 52 |
Parties | , 23 O.O.3d 90 RICHARDSON, Admx., Appellant, v. MEHAN, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Schnorf, Schnorf & Holmes, Co., L. P. A., Martin J. Holmes and William T. Maloney, Toledo, for appellant.
Spengler, Nathanson, Heyman, McCarthy & Durfee, James R. Jeffery and Truman A. Greenwood, Toledo, for appellee.
The appellee, Morgan Mehan, moved for a summary judgment on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to his status as a fellow employee of the appellant's decedent, and that, accordingly, under R.C. 4123.741, he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellant contended that at the time of the accident the appellee was not an employee of National Cement, the employer of the deceased, but, rather, was an independent contractor and thus not protected by R.C. 4123.741. This section is as follows:
"No employee of any employer, as defined in division (B) of section 4123.01 of the Revised Code, shall be liable to respond in damages at common law or by statute for any injury or occupational disease, received or contracted by any other employee of such employer in the course of and arising out of the latter employee's employment, or for any death resulting from such injury or occupational disease, on the condition that such injury, occupational disease, or death is found to be compensable under sections 4123.01 to 4123.94, inclusive, of the Revised Code."
The trial court, in reviewing the material before it on motion for summary judgment, found the operative facts to be as follows:
Upon the question presented by way of summary judgment as to the existence of material issue regarding whether the appellee and deceased were fellow employees, the trial court stated as follows in its decision:
The trial court correctly stated the basic test for determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor as found in Gillum v. Indus. Comm. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 373, 48 N.E.2d 234, paragraph two of the syllabus, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In Re Fedex Ground Package System Inc.
...courts grant summary judgment when the facts are undisputed and allow but one inference on the right to control. See Richardson v. Mehan, 430 N.E.2d 927 (Ohio 1982) (finding employee status); Perron v. Hood Indus., Inc., No. L-06-1396, 2007 WL 2458472 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2007) (finding ......
-
In re Fedex Ground Package System Inc.
...grant summary judgment when the facts are undisputed and allow but one inference on the right to control. See Richardson v. Mehan, 69 Ohio St.2d 52, 430 N.E.2d 927 (1982) (finding employee status); Perron v. Hood Indus., Inc., No. L–06–1396, 2007 WL 2458472 (Ohio Ct.App. Aug. 31, 2007) (fin......
-
Bostic v. Connor
...is thereby created." See, also, Marshall v. Aaron (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 48, 15 OBR 145, 472 N.E.2d 335; Richardson v. Mehan (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 52, 23 O.O.3d 90, 430 N.E.2d 927; Behner v. Indus. Comm. (1951), 154 Ohio St. 433, 43 O.O. 360, 96 N.E.2d 403, paragraphs one and two of the syll......
-
Home Bank, F.S.B. v. Daniel T. Pauer
...... delivery. Councell v. Douglas (1955), 163 Ohio St. 292; cf., Richardson v. Mehan (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d. 52. . . . Appellant also failed to support his allegation in the second. ......