Indus. Comm. v. Barber

Decision Date30 November 1927
Docket Number20444
PartiesIndustrial Commission Of Ohio v. Barber.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Workmen's compensation - Employee enters upon employment upon reaching zone under employer's control, when - Employe travelling only access to employment zone, outside employer's inclosure - Injuries due to hazards of such zone compensable.

1. An employe, who for the purpose of reaching his place of employment travels a course which affords the only unobstructed access thereto, enters upon the course of his employment within the contemplation of the Workmen's Compensation Law when he reaches the zone of such employment that is under the control of his employer, even though such zone be outside the inclosure of his employer.

2. The hazards of such zone growing out of the conditions and environments of his employment are hazards of his employment and an injury received by an employe due to such hazards is compensable out of the industrial insurance fund of the Workmen's compensation Law.

Defendant in error filed her claim with the Industrial Commission for an award for the death of her husband, Charles Barber, who was in his life an employe of the Thomas Sheet Steel Company. The plant of the Thomas Sheet Steel Company is located at the dead end of Summit street, in the city of Niles, Ohio. That street is maintained by the Thomas Sheet Steel Company from the plant to its intersection with Olive street. The Thomas Sheet Steel Company is in possession of the land on one side of that portion of Summit street, the land on the other side of Summit street being vacant land. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company has a right of way across Summit street adjacent to the inclosure of the Thomas Sheet Steel Company, and, while Summit street is a public street and the public may rightfully use it, that portion of it leads nowhere except to the plant of the Thomas Sheet Steel Company, and to the plant of the Niles Steel Products Company, which company occupies a building owned by the Thomas Sheet Steel Company and within the inclosure of the Thomas Sheet Steel Company, and to the right of Way of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, and, in fact, the street cannot be used In the direction of the Thomas Sheet Steel Company to reach any other point except by trespassing on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company's right of way.

At the dead end of Summit street is a gate of the Thomas Sheet Steel Company, through which all employees of the Thomas Sheet Steel Company and of the Niles Steel Products Company, whether on foot or in vehicles, are obliged to pass. That portion of Summit street has a common passageway or travelway, maintained by the Thomas Sheet Steel Company, for automobiles and pedestrians, and has no sidewalks, pathways, or other separate provision for pedestrians.

On the morning here in question, at about 5 minutes before the hour when he was to go on duty, Charles Barber, while approaching the entrance to the Thomas Sheet Steel Company's plant on that portion of Summit street maintained by the Thomas Sheet Steel Company, and at a distance of from 20 to 40 feet from the gate of the Thomas Sheet Steel Company, was struck by an automobile owned and driven by another of its employees, who was entering the plant for the purpose of parking his automobile within the inclosure at a place provided by the Thomas Sheet Steel Company, and of engaging in his employment there; the point where Charles Barber was struck being upon the crossing of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company and Summit street.

The claim was heard before the Industrial Commission and disallowed "on the ground that decedent's death was not caused by an injury received in the course of and arising out of his employment." Upon appeal to the court of common pleas, the cause was submitted to the court without a jury and the court found in favor of Margaret Barber defendant in error here. On error being prosecuted to the Court of Appeals, the judgment of the court of common pleas was affirmed. The Industrial Commission prosecutes error.

Mr. E. C. Turner, attorney general, Mr. R. R. Zurmehly,, and Mr. Lynn B. Griffith, prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Warren Thomas, for defendant in error.


The sole question here presented is whether the presence of the decedent at the place, at the time and under the circumstances of the accident, constituted him then and there in the course of his employment The legislation relating to workmen's compensation is predicated on Section 35 of Article II of the Ohio Constitution:

"For the purpose of providing compensation to workmen and their dependents, for death, injuries or occupational disease, occasioned in the course of such workmen's employment * * *."

The pertinent parts of such legislation are Section 1465-68 General Code: "Every employe, * * * who is injured and the dependents of such as are killed in the course of employment, wheresoever such injury has occurred, * * * shall be paid such compensation out of the state insurance fund," etc., and Section 1465-72, General Code: "The state liability board of awards shall disburse the state insurance fund to * * * employees * * who have been injured in the course of their employment, wheresoever such injuries...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People ex rel. Finn v. David
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1927
  • Indus. Comm'n of Ohio v. Barber
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • November 30, 1927
    ...117 Ohio St. 373159 N.E. 363INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIOv.BARBER.No. 20444.Supreme Court of Ohio.Nov. 30, Error to Court of Appeals, Trumbull County. Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Margaret Barber, claimant, for the death of Charles Barber, her husband, opposed by the T......

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