Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Ohio St. 2d 240

Evans v. Whirlpool Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 1967

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1967-05-31

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The rule of general acceptance is that where an independent contractor undertakes to do work for another in the very doing of which there are elements of real or potential danger and one of such contractor’s employees is injured as an incident to the performance of the work, no liability for such injury ordinarily attaches to the one who engaged the services of the independent contractor. * * * ((* * * “Or, stating the matter a little differently, one who engages an independent contractor to do work for him ordinarily owes no duty of protection to the employees of such contractor, in connection with the execution of the work, who proceeds therewith knowing and appreciating that there is a condition of danger surrounding its performance.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 9 Ohio App. 3d 203 - Millhouse v. General Tire & Rubber Co., Hirschbach v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.

““When the city accepted these waste materials from defendant with actual notice of their character, it undertook to dispose of them and thus became, as to the defendant, an independent contractor.” 10 Ohio St. 2d at 241 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including St. Julian v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-05-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 1999

1 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

1001967197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1When the city accepted these waste materials from defendant with actual notice of their character, it undertook to dispose of them and thus became, as to the defendant, an independent contractor.

¶2This court’s holding in Wellman v. East Ohio Gas Co., 160 Ohio St. 103, disposes of plaintiff’s contentions. Paragraphs one and two of the syllabus read:

¶3“1. Where an independent contractor undertakes to do work for another in the very doing of which there are elements of real or potential danger and one of such contractor’s employees is injured as an incident to the performance of the work, no liability for such injury ordinarily attaches to the one who engaged the services of the independent contractor.

¶4‘ ‘ 2. One who engages an independent contractor to do work for him ordinarily owes no duty of protection to the employees of such contractor, in connection with the execution of the work, who proceeds therewith knowing and appreciating that there is a condition of danger surrounding its performance.”

¶5The trial court was correct in directing the verdict for the defendant. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.
/10/ohiost2d/240 · .json · Public domain