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

> Ohio Supreme Court · April 3, 1985 · 17 Ohio St. 3d 58

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6758771

## Case

- **Full name:** Bradfield, Admr. v. Stop-N-Go Foods, Inc.
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 3, 1985
- **Citations:** 17 Ohio St. 3d 58; 17 Ohio B. 62; 477 N.E.2d 621; 1985 Ohio LEXIS 310
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Locher
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6758771

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6758771. Public record. Not legal advice.