Indus. Comm. v. Heil
| Decision Date | 06 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | 22622 |
| Citation | 123 Ohio St. 604,176 N.E. 458 |
| Parties | Industrial Commission Of Ohio v. Heil. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Workmen's compensation - Injuries not received in course of employment - Employe injured on way to work - Employer reimbursing employe for transportation expenses.
Theodore Heil was an employe of the E. W. Fulmer Company, hereinafter referred to as the company, which owned and operated an abattoir plant located on the south side of and near to the National Highway at a point between one and two miles west of Springfield, Ohio, and was a contributor to the state insurance fund. Heil lived in Springfield, and was the superintendent of the abattoir plant. The company paid him a salary of $40 per week, and in addition thereto agreed to reimburse him for the expense of his transportation between Springfield and the plant. This expense, however, was not to exceed $5 per week. Heil selected his own method of transportation. The company had no control over or interest in any conveyance by which he made his daily trips from his home to the plant and from the plant to his home. He often used a taxicab, but did not always do so.
Heil's duty at the plant necessitated his leaving his home between four and five o'clock in the morning. He had no duties to perform for the company at any place other than at the abattoir plant.
On December 24, 1927, Heil called a taxicab to come to his home in Springfield, and shortly after four o'clock a. m. he started in the taxicab as a pas- senger for his place of employment. He was driven west by the driver of the taxicab on the National Highway to a point about two blocks east of the point where a private lane led from the south side of the highway to the abattoir plant, at which point he alighted from the taxicab, dismissed the driver, and started to walk the remainder of the distance to the plant by way of the National Highway and the private alley. While so walking on the highway, and when about 300 feet east of the private alley, he was struck by an automobile traveling at high speed on the highway, and was seriously injured.
In due time Heil presented his claim for compensation for injuries received to the Industrial Commission. His claim was rejected on the ground that his injuries were not received in the course of his employment. A rehearing was granted by the commission, and the claim again examined and rejected on the same grounds. The common pleas court rendered judgment in favor of Heil, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the action of the trial court. The Industrial Commission prosecutes error to this court, claiming that there was no evidence tending to show that Heil was injured while in the course of his employment and for this reason the trial court should have sustaIned the motion of the Industrial Commission for a directed verdict in its favor.
Mr Gilbert Bettman, attorney general, Mr. R. R. Zurmehly, and Mr. Otho L. McKinney and Mr. Orville Wear, prosecuting attorneys, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs Todd, Tehan & Lorentz, for defendant in error.
There is no dispute in the evidence about the facts. The sole question in the case is, was Heil injured while in the course of his employment? He was injured while he was on his way from his home to his place of employment. The injury occurred on the public highway, and before he had reached the property of his employer. He had no duties to perform for his employer until he reached the abattoir plant. His position at the time of his injury was no different from what it would have been had he been on his way to the abattoir plant where his duty there would have required...
To continue reading
Request your trial