Opinion

State ex rel. Trydle v. Industrial Commission

32 Ohio St. 2d 257
61 Ohio Op. 2d 488
291 N.E.2d 748
1972 Ohio LEXIS 393

Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Filed: Dec 15, 1972
Status: Published
Author: Schneider
On the bench: Brown, Corrigan, Herbert, Leach, Neill, Schneider, Stern, Syllabus
Cited by: 86 cases

The opinion

Schneider, J.,

dissenting. As to case No. 72-394, I would hold that both E. C. 4109.12(D) and E. C. 4109.,-13(E) are specific requirements and therefore applicable to justify the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

As to case No. 72-395, E. C. 4109.12(U) forbids a youngster under 18 to be permitted to work in the operation of a motor vehicle. How specific can words be? The young lady received her injuries in employment directly contrary to this prohibition. She should recover an additional award as a penalty to her employer for his violation of a specific statute. Anything to the contrary in the previous decisions of this court has outlived its propriety.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.