Harry Kottler


Workmen's compensation acts have been generally interpreted in three ways: first, as the substitution of a statutory tort for a common law tort; second, as the regulation of the relationship between employer and employee, which is primarily contractual in character; third, as the creation of a new statutory relation between master and servant, the chief incident of which is to impose upon the master financial responsibility for certain risks of service. While these represent the underlying legal philosophies in the enactment of workmen's compensation laws, the desiderata in enactment of workmen's compensation laws vary from state to state, and for that reason the acts of the various states are as varied in their provisions and coverage as is the imagination of man. This article, therefore, is limited to the coverage contemplated by the Ohio Workmen's Compensation Law.