 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Meszaros v. Legal News Publishing Co.6/29/2000
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED.
Appellant, Legal News Publishing Co., is appealing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee, Robert J. Meszaros. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Meszaros was employed by Legal News Publishing Co. Legal News assigned Meszaros to park in a lot owned by the Zion Church. Meszaros received the parking space free as a benefit of his employment. Legal News leased the parking spaces from the church. The lot was located across the street from Legal News, behind the church.
Meszaros deposed that on the date of the injury, he parked in his assigned space. He left the parking lot, walked through an adjacent parking lot owned by Digital Magic, and then walked down the driveway, also owned by Digital Magic. This driveway was used by cars to gain access to the Digital Magic and Zion Church lots. The Legal News employees typically walked down the driveway. Meszaros fell on ice in the driveway. He sustained a right humeral fracture and right pelvic fracture.
Meszaros stated that the employees were provided keys to unlock the gate in the church lot and walked down East 30th. He typically did not use the church gate. When Bill Russ assigned Meszaros to Lot B, he told Meszaros he could enter and leave through Digital Magic's driveway. Sometimes the Digital Magic lot was closed with a security gate, so the key to the church gate was provided. Meszaros went through the Digital Magic parking lot because it was easier than unlocking the gate. The sidewalk on East 30th was usually not shoveled.
The District Hearing Officer allowed Meszaros' worker's compensation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Meszaros.
Appellant's sole assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN EXTENDING MESZAROS' ZONE OF EMPLOYMENT TO AN AREA OUTSIDE OF LNP'S CONTROL AND TO WHICH HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CROSS OUT OF NECESSITY OR AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.
As a general rule, 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 Workers' Compensation Fund because the requisite causal connection between the injury and the employment does not exist. The general rule, however, does not operate as a complete bar to an employee who is injured commuting to and from work if the injury occurs within the "zone of employment. (citations omitted) MTD Products, Inc. v. Robatin (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 66, 68.
If the area is under the employer's control and the street is the sole access route to the place of employment, the employee is within this "zone of employment". Bralley v. Daugherty (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 302. Even if the street is not under the control of the employer, the employee is within the zone of employment if the employee could not reach the plant entrance from the employee parking lot without crossing the public street. Baughman v. Eaton Corp. (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 62. If the employee is injured on the public street while traveling from a lot not owned or operated by the employer, which the employees was not required to park in, the employee was not injured in the zone of employment. Weiss v. University Hospitals of Cleveland (Apr. 20, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 77175, unreported (publication requested.) Based on this case law, appellant argues that the Digital Magic driveway was not controlled by appellant and was not the sole means of access to Daily Legal News, so Meszaros was not in the zone of employment.
Weiss, supra at 7 noted that:
... the control element can be satisfied, because of the conditions created by the employer in
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|