Evans v. Whirlpool Corp.
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- St. Julian v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (Lucas County Court of Common Pleas 1978)
- Foraker v. Cyclops Corp. (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1985)
- Millhouse v. General Tire & Rubber Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 1983)
- Cross v. Hydracrete Pumping Company (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
- Mersits v. Podojil Builders, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1989)
- Hirschbach v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (Ohio 1983)
- Angel v. United States (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1986)
- Cafferkey v. Turner Construction Co. (Ohio 1986)
- Marshall v. Aaron (Ohio 1984)
- Donch v. Delta Inspection Services, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)
- Cross v. Hydracrete Pumping Company, Unpublished Decision (3-11-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
- Constance Grossman v. Aristech Chemical Company, a Delaware Corporation (6th Cir. 1996)
- Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Maryland v. Chesapeake Utilities Corp. (Del. 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
This 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:
“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.
‘ ‘ 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.”
The trial court was correct in directing the verdict for the defendant. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.