
    LACHER v ROXANA PETROLEUM CORP
    Ohio Appeals, 6th. Dist, Erie Co
    No. 359.
    Decided April 24, 1931
    J. F. McCrystal, Sandusky, for Lacher.
    King, Ramsey & Flynn, Sandusky, for Roxana Petroleum Corp.
   WILLIAMS, J.

Article II, Section 35, of the Constitution of Ohio gives to the General Assembly power to enact a workmen’s compensation law. This constitutional provision was amended by vote of the people at the election of November, 1923, and the amendment became effective January 1, 1924. §1465-76, GC, was enacted by the General Assembly previous to the adoption of this amendment. The statute must give way to the constitutional provision as amended, which contains this language:

“Such compensation shall be in lieu of all other rights to compensation or damages for such death, injuries or occupational disease and any employer who pays the premium or compensation provided by law passed in accordance herewith shall not be liable to respond in damages at common law or by statute for such death, injuries or occupational disease.”

There is also provision for increased compensation; not exceeding fifty nor less than fifteen percent, in case the Commission finds there has been a violation of a lawful requirement. Under this constitutional provision as amended, injury by wilful act of the employer is compensable, but can not be made the basis of an action for damages.

Counsel for plaintiff in error rely on Boek v Wong Hing, decided May 29, 1930 by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. We are of the opinion that under the facts alleged In the petition, that case has no application. to the instant case.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed.

LLOYD and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

A CORRECTION

The decision in the case of Lacher v Roxana pejtroleujm Coirp., found in the issue of Sept. 5, 1931, at 10 Abs 348, was erroneously published. The opinion should read as found below instead of as found as above noted.  
    A CORRECTION
    The decision in the case of Lacher v Roxana pejtroleujm Coirp., found in the issue of Sept. 5, 1931, at 10 Abs 348, was erroneously published. The opinion should read as found below instead of as found as above noted.
  