Donahue v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.

• Decision Date: 08 March 1985
• Docket Number: No. 385S83,385S83
• Parties: Shirley DONAHUE, Appellant, v. YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 1013

474 N.E.2d 1013

Shirley DONAHUE, Appellant, v. YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 385S83.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 8, 1985.

Joseph P. Allegretti, Barry D. Sherman, Hammond, for appellant.

George E. Bloom, James E. Schreiner, Hammond, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

This cause comes to us on a petition to transfer by Petitioner-Appellee-Defendant Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company following Petitioner's adverse ruling in the First District Court of Appeals. This cause originated in the Industrial Board as a claim filed by Appellant-Plaintiff Shirley Donahue based on injuries she received from an accident on October 17, 1978. The accident took place at a location on Dickey Road, a four-lane public thoroughfare in East Chicago, Indiana, after she had finished her work, had "punched out" on a time clock at Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company and was walking to her automobile parked on said road. The Industrial Board concluded that Donahue's injuries did not result from an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with Youngstown. The Court of Appeals reversed the Board's decision and remanded the cause to the Board for further action. Donahue v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., (1983) Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 751, reh. denied (1984) (Ratliff, J., dissenting).

The sole issue now presented is whether Donahue's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. Judge Ratliff pointed out in his dissenting opinion that worker's compensation benefits are awarded to employees only for injuries which arise out of and in the course of employment and a claimant must show a causal connection between his or her employment and injury for the injury to have been received in the course of the employment. We agree. See Ind.Code Sec. 22-3-2-2 (Burns Supp.1984); Bowling v. Fountain County Highway Department, (1981) Ind.App., 428 N.E.2d 80, reh. denied (1982); Slinkard v. Extruded Alloys, (1971) 150 Ind.App. 479, 277 N.E.2d 176. Whether or not an injury arises in the course of employment ordinarily is a question of fact to be determined by the Industrial Board. Burger Chef Systems, Inc., v. Wilson, (1970) 147 Ind.App. 556, 262 N.E.2d 660, see Calhoun v. Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., (1978) 269 Ind. 507, 381 N.E.2d 1242. In reviewing a negative award by the Industrial Board, we do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our decision for that of the Board, rather, we will overturn the Board's decision only when there is substantial undisputed evidence compelling a result contrary to that reached by the Board. Bowling, supra; Birge v. Bryant Air Conditioning, (1979) 182 Ind.App. 1, 393 N.E.2d 790, reh. denied; Martinez v. Taylor Forge & Pipe Works, (1977) 174 Ind.App. 514, 368 N.E.2d 1176, trans. denied; Wolf v. Plibrico Sales & Service Co., (1973) 158 Ind.App. 111, 301 N.E.2d 756, reh. denied, 158 Ind.App. 127, 304 N.E.2d 355, trans. denied. Since the record in the instant case supports the Board's conclusion that Donahue's injury was not received in the course of her employment, we must defer to that finding and affirm its decision. We accordingly vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals and affirm the decision of the Industrial Board.

In reaching its decision, the Board found that Donahue had completed her duties and clocked out, had left Youngstown's premises, was crossing a public street, was not directed by Youngstown to park her vehicle on Dickey Road and was struck by a non-employee on the public highway. The record supports these findings of fact. Specifically, the record shows that Donahue was employed with Youngstown as a "counterman" at the Youngstown pipe mill canteen with duties limited to general cafeteria work at that location. There are two general areas at the Youngstown Complex--the pipe mill and the tin mill--and each area has a separate location for hourly employees to clock out. Although the pipe mill had a time clock location within walking distance of Donahue's work place, Donahue chose to clock out at the tin mill on Dickey Road on this occasion. Testimony was that employees were supposed to clock out at their respective locations although Youngstown management knew that some pipe mill employees clocked out at the tin mill location and management made no particular objection. On the night of Donahue's accident, she left her place of employment, drove her automobile down Dickey Road, parked across the street from the tin mill clock-out position, crossed Dickey Road on foot, clocked out, and then attempted to cross the street again to reach her automobile but was struck by a car driven by a person not employed by Youngstown. There was evidence that there was an employee parking lot 400 to 600 feet away and on the same side of Dickey Road as the tin mill clock-out location and Donahue testified she had used this parking lot on prior occasions. There also was conflicting evidence that she could not have used that parking lot on this occasion. It was established that Donahue was not directed by Youngstown to park her vehicle on the public thoroughfare and, in fact, that her employment duties never required the use of an automobile. It was uncontroverted by Donahue that she was not on Youngstown's premises and that she was not performing employment duties at the time of her accident. Moreover, it was clearly established that Dickey Road is a public road notwithstanding the fact that Youngstown owned the property on both sides of said road and, at the intersection in question, there were entrances to the Youngstown complex intersecting Dickey Road. There was conflict in the testimony over the ownership and operation of the traffic control signals serving Dickey Road and Youngstown's exits and entrances at this location. Plaintiff contended that Youngstown owned and operated the traffic control signals at this intersection but there was other evidence that the signals were located on a public easement and that Youngstown maintained the traffic lights through a maintenance contract with an electrical contractor. There was no evidence that said signals served only traffic to Youngstown's premises but rather the evidence showed that the signals controlled all traffic along Dickey Road. There was, therefore, no showing of Donahue's contention that the situs of her injuries was under the exclusive possession and control of Youngstown. All parties stipulated that Dickey Road was, in fact, a public thoroughfare and the evidence in the record supports the Board in finding that the general public was exposed to the same risk on Dickey Road as was Donahue and that these risks were beyond the employment relationship.

Plaintiff's reliance upon several Indiana cases does not support her position. In O'Dell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., (1977) 173 Ind.App. 106, 362 N.E.2d 862, trans. denied, an employee was killed when struck by a fellow employee on a company owned and controlled road. The company altered the direction of traffic on the road during peak traffic periods and, apparently, confusion about which employee had the right-of-way caused a head-on collision resulting in one employee's death. The appellate court in O'Dell simply held that since claiming dependant properly secured benefits from the employer under Indiana's Workmen's Compensation Act, no common law action for personal injury would be allowed. In Ward v. Tillman, (1979) 179 Ind.App. 626, 386 N.E.2d 1003, an employee was injured in a collision with a fellow employee in their employer's parking lot. The Appellate Court affirmed the benefits award by holding that employer controlled parking lots and private drives used by employees were extensions of the employer's operating premises. In L.W. Edison, Inc., v. Teagarden, (1981) Ind.App., 423 N.E.2d 709, Teagarden was an employee of a general contractor on a state highway project in which a number of sub-contractors were under the supervision of the employer including Hipskind Asphalt Corporation. On the day of the accident, Teagarden's van collided with a Hipskind asphalt paver as Teagarden was traveling to his assigned work site approximately one-half hour prior to the regularly scheduled work day. ...