Decamp v. Youngstown Municipal Railway Company

Decision Date27 May 1924
Docket Number18237
Citation144 N.E. 128,110 Ohio St. 376
PartiesDecamp v. The Youngstown Municipal Railway Company.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Negligence - Master and servant - Employment begins, when - Conveying employe to and from work - Injuries in course of employment - Workmen's compensation,

1.Where an employer contracts to carry an employe to and from his work, the employment begins when the employe enters the conveyance to go to the place of work.

2.An employe of a street railway who was Injured at the car stop whore he left the street car In order to go to his employment, having bean conveyed to his work on the street car : a part of the contract of employment, Is injured In the course of his employment, and Is remitted to the Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation.

This was an action for personal injury instituted in Mahoning county arising out of the following facts:

The plaintiff was an employe of the defendant as night foreman at its car barns at the time he received the injuries for which the suit was brought, The defendant is the owner and operator of a line of street railway in the city of Youngstown. At the time the plaintiff entered the employment of the defendant as part of his regular compensation the defendant gave him a book of tickets which entitled the plaintiff to transportation on any of the defendant's cars to and from his work. On the evening of the accident plaintiff, on his way to work, boarded one of the regular cars of the defendant running from the public square in Youngstown past the car barns where the plaintiff works. He alighted at stop 4, which is a regular stop on the trip, in the immediate vicinity of the car barns. This is the stop where the plaintiff usually alighted to go to his work, and is on the premises of the defendant.

The plaintiff received his injuries while getting off the car at stop 4. He brought suit as a passenger, and verdict and judgment were rendered in his favor. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment on the sole ground that "the said judgment is contrary to law." The case comes into this court upon motion to certify the record.

Mr. W S. Metcalfe and Mr. B. K. DeCamp, forplaintiff in error. Messrs. Kennedy, Manchester, Conroy & Ford, for defendant in error.


As the judgment was reversed upon the sole ground that it was contrary to law, the only question confronting us here is whether the injuries were incurred in the course of the plaintiff's employment. If the accident occurred outside of the course of the plaintiff's employment he was entitled to recover in this action. If the accident occurred within the course of plaintiff's employment he is not entitled to recover in this action, but should have applied for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. Code, Sections 1465-37 to 1465-108).

It is the general rule that if an employe is conveyed to and from his work in a conveyance fur- nished by the employer, under an express or Implied contract made by the employer to furnish such conveyance, an injury occurring to an employe while on the journey arises within the course of employment. Bradbury's Workmen's Compensation (3 Ed.), pp. 480, 481, and 482.

Boyd on Workmen's Compensation, Section 486, states the rule as follows:

"In cases where the employer contracts to carry the servant to and from his work, the employment within the compensation statutes is generally held to begin when the workman enters the train to go to the place of work."

This rule is sustained by the following leading authorities Kowalek v. New York Consolidated Ry. Co., 190 A.D. 160, 179 N.Y.S. 637; Littler v.

Geo. A Fuller Co., 223 N.Y. 369, 119 N. E., 554; In ne Donovan, 217 Mass. 76, 104 N. E., 431, Ann.Cas., 1915C, 778; Wabash Ry Co. v. Industrial Commission, 294 111., 119, 128 N. E., 290; In re Stacy, 225 Mass. 174, 114 N. E., 206; Central Construction Corp. v. Harrison, 137 Md. 256, 112 A. 627; Cudahy Packing Co. of Nebraska v. Indus. Comm., 60 Utah 161, 207 Pac, 148.

A case which upholds the same general proposition is Erie Rd. Co. v Winfield, 244 U.S. 170, 37 Sup. Ct., 556, 61 L.Ed. 1057, Ann.Cas., 1918B, 662, which held that an employe of an interstate railway carrier in charge of a switch engine who was killed while leaving the yards after his day's work, which had included employment in both interstate and intrastate commerce, was at the time of the accident employed in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Federal...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT