 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maienza v. Canrad9/20/2000
y materials showing that a material issue of fact does exist." Morehead v. Conley at 413.
"The coming-and-going rule is a tool used to determine whether an injury suffered by an employee in a traffic accident occurs 'in the course of' and 'arises out of' the employment relationship so as to constitute a compensable injury under R.C. 4123.01(C)." Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 117, 119. Generally, the "coming-and-going" rule provides that "an employee with a fixed place of employment, who is injured while traveling to or from his place of employment, is not entitled to participate in [the Fund] because the requisite causal connection between injury and the employment does not exist." Ruckman, 119, quoting MTD Products, Inc. v. Robatin (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 66, 68, citing, Bralley v. Daugherty (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 302.
Neither party disputes that Maienza was a fixed-situs employee. However, that alone does not mean that he cannot participate in the Fund. A claimant may avoid the effect of the "coming-and-going" rule when he can otherwise demonstrate that he received his injury in the course of and arising out of his employment. Ruckman at 120, citing MTD Products.
OCI urges us to apply the three-prong test of Lord. This "totality of the circumstances" test is used to determine whether there is a sufficient causal connection between a claimant's injury and a claimant's employment to justify participation in the Fund. In applying the Lord test, we look at "(1) the proximity of the scene of the accident to the place of employment, (2), the degree of control the employer had over the scene of the accident, and (3) the benefit the employer received from the injured employee's presence at the scene of the accident." Ruckman at 122, quoting Lord at the syllabus. However, the failure to satisfy the Lord test does not mean that an employee may not participate in the Fund. The enumerated factors of the Lord test "are not intended to be exhaustive and the totality-of-the-circumstances test may continue to evolve." Ruckman at 122, citing Fisher v. Mayfield (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 275, 279, fn.2. The "coming-and-going" cases have developed a "unique group of tests." Fisher at 280. "Workers' compensation cases are, to a large extent, very fact specific. As such, no one test or analysis can be said to apply to each and every factual possibility." Ruckman at 122, quoting Fisher at 280.
One of the "unique" "coming-and-going" tests is that n employee who, on his way from the fixed situs of his duties after the close of his work day, is injured in a collision of his automobile and that of a fellow employee occurring in a parking lot located adjacent to such situs of duty and owned, maintained and con-trolled by his employer for the exclusive use of its employees, receives such injury 'in the course of, and arising out of' his employment, within the meaning of that phrase in the Workers' Compensation Act * * *. Donnelly v. Herron (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 425, 429, quoting Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 18, syllabus.
In this case, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the access road where Maienza was injured is owned, maintained, and controlled by OCI for its exclusive benefit. We find that an access road maintained and controlled by an employer for its exclusive benefit is not significantly different from a parking lot maintained and controlled by an employer exclusively for its employees.
There is no dispute that Maienza was "on his way from the fixed situs of his duties after the close of his work day" and was "injured in a collision of his automobile and that of a fellow employee" on an access road
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|