Opinion

Bradfield v. Stop-N-Go Foods, Inc.

17 Ohio St. 3d 58
17 Ohio B. 62
477 N.E.2d 621
1985 Ohio LEXIS 310

Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Filed: Apr 3, 1985
Status: Published
Author: Locher
On the bench: Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney, Wright
Cited by: 7 cases
Authority: More cited than 15.1%

The opinion

Locher, J.,

dissenting. I dissent because, as I noted in my dissent in Jones v. VIP Development Co. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 90, 101-102 , double recovery of workers’ compensation and intentional tort benefits is untenable in law or logic. A viable alternative might be set off of claims if a basis is presented, after recovery of workers’ compensation benefits, for a genuinely intentional tort. Unfortunately the majority has refused to apply the definition of “intentional” in an analytically consistent manner and has rejected all alternatives, such as setoff, to reconcile this problem.

Accordingly, I dissent.

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.