Skip to main content
Ohio Supreme Court· 5/13/1998

Sopkovich v. Ohio Edison Co.

Citations

  • 81 Ohio St. 3d 628
  • 693 N.E.2d 233

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that plaintiff was aware that painting a partially deenergized substation is an inherently dangerous activity
  • stating that merely exercising a general supervisory role over the project is insufficient to constitute active participation
  • painting a partially de-energized electrical station, because of the obvious risk of electrocution, is inherently dangerous work
  • defining active participation in terms of control of the employee's work activities or the employee's work environment
  • merely exercising a general supervisory role over the project is insufficient to constitute active participation
  • painting a partially de-energized substation is an inherently dangerous activity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Second, Stratton, Sweeney, Wolff

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Sopkovich v. Ohio Edison Co.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.