Simerlink v. Young
| Decision Date | 22 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 36865,36865 |
| Citation | 17 O.O.2d 376,172 Ohio St. 427,178 N.E.2d 168 |
| Parties | , 17 O.O.2d 376 SIMERLINK, Appellee, v. YOUNG, Admr., Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, Appellant, et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Injuries received by an employee en route to work in his own automobile, while not on duty and not performing tasks assigned to him by his employer, are not compensable as 'received in the course of, and arising out of, the injured employee's employment.'
2. Injuries received by a police officer while driving his own automobile from his home to a police station to report for his regularly assigned hours of duty are not, by reason of a police department rule requiring that members of the police department 'at all times * * * must be prepared to act immediately on notice that their services are required,' compensable as injuries received in the course of, and arising out of, employment.
James Simerlink, a police officer of the city of Youngstown, filed an application for workmen's compensation with the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, as the result of injuries sustained on June 22, 1956, in an automobile collision at a street intersection in the city of Youngstown.
The administrator, finding that claimant's disability 'is not the result of an injury sustained in the course of and arising out of employment with the named employer,' disallowed the claim. In administrative appeals, the Regional Board of Review and the Industrial Commission, successively, upheld the order of the administrator. Thereupon, the claimant appealed to the Common Pleas Court from the decision of the Industrial Commission disallowing the claim.
In the Common Pleas Court, the cause was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff determining that he had a right to participate in the State Insurance Fund. Judgment for plaintiff was entered on the verdict, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas Court.
The cause is before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Mark McElroy, Atty. Gen., and Alvin C. Vinopal, Columbus, for appellant.
Marvin Traxler, Youngstown, for appellee.
The testimony on behalf of the plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas was not controverted, the defendants having rested after their motion for a directed verdict, made at the end of the plaintiff's case, was overruled. The undisputed facts are as follows:
On June 22, 1956, at about 10:30 p. m., plaintiff was injured in an automobile collision at the intersection of Indianola and South Avenues in the city of Youngstown. At the time of the accident, he, in uniform, was en route in his own automobile to the downtown police station to report for work on his regularly assigned night turn, being required to be at roll call at 10:45 p. m.
The plaintiff claims that, under the rules of the police department of Youngstown, he was a police officer at all times; that when he was going to work, in full uniform and with a gun and other police equipment necessary for the performance of his work, he was an employee in the course of employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The plaintiff testified that he was subject to the provisions of General Rule 2 of the Department of Police, adopted and promulgated by the chief of police of the city of Youngstown, which reads as follows:
The effect of a rule adopted by the employer to define the scope of the duties of an employee was considered by this court in the case of Industrial Commission v. Ahern, 119 Ohio St. 41, 162 N.E. 272, 59 A.L.R. 367. Paragraph one of the syllabus of that case it as follows:
'No custom,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Littlefield v. Pillsbury Co.
...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 (1933), 127 Ohio St. 345, 188 N.E. The "special hazard or risk" exc......
-
Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc.
...his official capacity whenever needed but typically started work only after checking in at a station house (Simerlink v. Young [1961], 172 Ohio St. 427, 17 O.O.2d 376, 178 N.E.2d 168), a products-control manager who occasionally took work home and remained on call twenty-four hours a day (L......
-
Wolland v. Industrial Commission, 54969
...(1973), 29 Cal.App.3d 902, 106 Cal.Rptr. 39; McKiernan v. City of New Haven (1964), 151 Conn. 496, 199 A.2d 695; Simerlink v. Young (1961), 172 Ohio St. 427, 178 N.E.2d 168; Blackley v. City of Niagara Falls (1954), 248 App.Div. 51, 130 N.Y.S.2d 77; Baughman v. City of Omaha (1943), 142 Neb......
-
Griffin v. Hydra-Matic Div., General Motors Corp.
...[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) 128 Ohio St. 129, 190 N.E. 400]; Indus. Comm. v. Baker (1933), 127......