Lord v. Daugherty, No. 80-687

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: REILLY; CELEBREZZE; COOK, J., of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting for WILLIAM B. BROWN; REILLY, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for CLIFFORD F. BROWN
• Citation: 20 O.O.3d 376,423 N.E.2d 96,66 Ohio St.2d 441
• Decision Date: 17 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-687
• Parties: , 20 O.O.3d 376 LORD, Appellant, v. DAUGHERTY, Admr., et al., Appellees.

Page 441

66 Ohio St.2d 441 423 N.E.2d 96, 20 O.O.3d 376 LORD, Appellant,
v.
DAUGHERTY, Admr., et al., Appellees. No. 80-687. Supreme Court of Ohio. June 17, 1981. Syllabus by the Court

Whether there is a sufficient "causal connection" between an employee's injury and his employment to justify the right to participate in the Worker's Compensation Fund depends on the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident, including, (1) the proximity of the scene of the accident to the place of employment, (2) the degree of control the employer had over the scene of the accident, and (3) the benefit the employer received from the injured employee's presence at the scene of the accident.

Page 442

Appellant, JoAnn Lord, initiated this action under R. C. 4123.519, appealing the disallowance of her claim for death benefits filed with the Bureau of Workers' Compensation. The record indicates that, on the [423 N.E.2d 97] morning of February 6, 1976, appellant's husband (decedent) was killed as a result of an accidental injury sustained while operating a Caterpillar Model 950 tractor owned by appellee, Winzeler Excavating Company, Inc. There was no fixed employment situs, due to the nature of decedent's occupation, which at that time of the year included snow removal service. Decedent's scope of employment depended upon where his employer directed him to use the tractor. Although he was last seen alive within the scope of his employment, he was discovered three miles from his nearest plowing assignment. There is no evidence as to what or whom he was servicing at this location.

The trial court granted defendants-appellees' (the employer and the Administrator of the Bureau) motions for directed verdict by finding there was insufficient evidence for a jury to determine that appellant maintained the burden of proving the decedent was within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. The court found that "under the law it would not be proper to allow the jury to speculate on these matters or to require the defendants to go forward on this cause."

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

James C. Ayers, Columbus, Parker, Fenton, Gallagher & Milliken and Ralph W. Gallagher, Bryan, for appellant.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Roger R. Weiher, Toledo, for appellee Administrator.

Newcomer, Shaffer, Geesey & Hutton, James A. Hutton and Timothy P. Heather, Bryan, for appellee employer.

REILLY, Judge.

Appellant asserts three propositions of law:

1. Where an employee suffers an accidental death as a direct result of operating a piece of equipment owned by his employer, which he was hired to operate, whether he is within the scope of his employment is a question of fact and it is error

Page 443

for the trial court to direct a verdict in favor of the defendants as a matter of law."

2. "It will be presumed that an employee who is shown to have been engaged in his employment a short time before his death continued in such employment up to the time of his death in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

3. "Where a death occurs, as a result of an accidental injury, such death is compensable, under the Workers' Compensation Law...