Lohnes v. Young

Decision Date27 November 1963
Docket NumberNo. 38019,38019
Citation25 O.O.2d 136,194 N.E.2d 428,175 Ohio St. 291
Parties, 25 O.O.2d 136 LOHNES, Appellant, v. YOUNG, Admr. et al., Appellees.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

An employee who has a fixed and limited place of employment is not in the course of his employment when traveling to and from work, even though such employee is on 24-hour call and occasionally must return to work after his regular working hours.

This cause arose by an application for a death benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The appellant is the widow of one Harry S. Lohnes, the decedent. The decedent was employed by General Mills, Inc., at its Toledo plant as products-control manager. As such manager he acted in a supervisory capacity over some 16 men employed in three different shifts at the plant. Although decedent's usual working hours were from 8:00 a. m. to 4:30 p. m., he occasionally returned to the plant after his regular working hours because of an emergency or to check the men working under him. These return trips to the factory were at his own discretion and not be specific direction by his employer. On the day of his death, decedent had returned to the plant in the evening. There is no specific evidence as to why he returned. After finishing at the factory, he apparently started to drive home, and he was involved in an automobile accident which, according to the findings of the trial court, accelerated a heart condition, ultimarely causing his death. There is very little, if any, controversy as to the factual question. Appellant filed a death claim with the Industrial Commission, which claim was denied.

Upon appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, that court, at the close of plaintiff's evidence, rendered judgment in favor of the commission and the employer, on the ground that, as a matter of law, decedent's death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

That judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which, finding its judgment to be in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County in the case of Finnegan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Ohio App., 162 N.E.2d 216, certified the record to this court for decision.

William J. Syring, Toledo, for appellant.

William Saxbe, Atty. Gen., Robert M. Duncan, Columbus, and Alvin C. Vinopal, Columbus, for appellee James L. Young, Administrator of the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation.

Marshall, Melhorn, Bloch & Belt and Arnold F. Bunge, Jr., Toledo, for appellee General Mills, Inc.

GRIFFITH, Judge.

The sole question in this case is whether an employee with a fixed and limited place of employment whose duties require him to return occasionally to such place in the evening after his ordinary working hours who is injured in a motor vehicle accident while returning home from the plant after working there during the evening hours suffers an injury in the course of his employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

It is well settled that the Workmen's Compensation Act does not create a general insurance fund for the compensation for injuries in general to employees but only for those injuries which occur in the course of and arise out of the employment.

In the present action, decedent, who had a fixed and limited place of employment, had concluded his work for his employer and was on his way home.

It is a general rule that the traveling to and from work by an employee who has a fixed and limited place of employment is not considered to be an activity in the course of and arising out of the employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Simerlink v. Young, Admr., 172 Ohio St. 427, 178 N.E.2d 168; Industrial Commission v. Baker, 127 Ohio St. 345, 188 N.E. 560; Industrial Commission v. Gintert, 128 Ohio St. 129, 190 N.E. 400, 92 A.L.R. 1032.

It is appellant's contention that this rule is not applicable as to decedent because of the nature of his duties. It is urged that because of his supervisory duties he was on call 24 hours a day and was compelled to do a part of his work at home, thus his trips to and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 cases
  • Littlefield v. Pillsbury Co.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1983
    ...in the course of his employment and is not compensable." Bralley v. Daugherty, supra, at 303-304, 401 N.E.2d 448; Lohnes v. Young (1963), 175 Ohio St. 291 , 194 N.E.2d 428; Simerlink v. Young (1961), 172 Ohio St. 427 , 178 N.E.2d 168; Indus. Comm. v. Gintert, supra; Indus. Comm. v. Baker (1......
  • Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1998
    ...at 4, 1994 WL 587963; Hawkins v. Connor (Aug. 12, 1983), Mercer App. No. 10-82-11, unreported, at 10, 1983 WL 7317. St. 291, 25 O.O.2d 136, 194 N.E.2d 428), and a slaughterhouse superintendent whose employer provided compensation for travel from his home to the plant. (Heil, The evidence de......
  • Griffin v. Hydra-Matic Div., General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • October 12, 1988
    ...Bralley v. Daugherty, supra [ (1980) 61 Ohio St.2d 302], at 303-304 [15 O.O.3d 359, 401 N.E.2d 448]; Lohnes v. Young (1963), 175 Ohio St. 291 [25 O.O.2d 136, 194 N.E.2d 428]; Simerlink v. Young (1961), 172 Ohio St. 427 [17 O.O.2d 376, 178 N.E.2d 168]; Indus. Comm. v. Gintert, supra, [ (1934......
  • Kohlmayer v. Keller
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1970
    ...from the picnic. To fully accept the rationale of Ricciardi seemingly would compel the overruling by this court of Lohnes v. Young (1963), 175 Ohio St. 291, 194 N.E.2d 428; Simerlink v. Young (1961), 172 Ohio St. 427, 178 N.E.2d 168; Industrial Commission v. Baker (1933), 127 Ohio St. 345, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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