Taylor v. State Compensation Com'r
| Decision Date | 15 January 1935 |
| Docket Number | 8046. |
| Citation | 178 S.E. 71,116 W.Va. 13 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. STATE COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted January 9, 1935.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In determining the right to compensation of an employee injured on his employer's property while en route to or from work, primary consideration must be given to the zone of employment.
2. It is a general rule that, if an employee, en route to or from his work, is injured on the property of the employer, not within the zone of employment, compensation may not be awarded.
Appeal from Order of State Compensation Commissioner.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by John Taylor employee, to recover compensation for injury sustained while employed by the Red Jacket Consolidated Coal & Coke Company. From a judgment of the State Compensation Commissioner denying compensation, the employee appeals.
Affirmed.
E Gaujot Bias, of Williamson, for appellant.
Homer A. Holt, Atty. Gen., and Kenneth E. Hines, Asst. Atty. Gen for respondent.
Goodykoontz & Slaven, of Williamson, for Red Jacket Consolidated Coal & Coke Co.
Claimant complains of an order of the workmen's compensation commissioner refusing him compensation on the ground that the injury involved did not arise in the course of and result from his employment. Code, 23-4-1.
On the 9th of February, 1933, after completing his work for the day claimant left the mine of his employer, Red Jacket Consolidated Coal & Coke Company, through an opening which had been made at the rear for purposes of ventilation, admission of electric cables and discharge of refuse. He adopted this exit to shorten the distance he would have to walk to reach his home which was not located on the employer's property. He descended from this outlet by a rough and unimproved route, and, as he attempted to cross a small stream at the base of the slope about three-fourths of a mile from where he had left the mine, and still on his employer's property, he slipped on the ice and fell, breaking his left wrist.
With the knowledge of the mine officials but without any special permission so to do, a relatively small number (5 to 25) of the 350 men employed in the mine used this method of ingress and egress to and from the mine. The others used the main entrance and the passageway which had been constructed therefrom to the public road by the employer for the use of the employees, most of whom resided in houses owned by the employer.
In determining the right to compensation of an employee injured on his employer's property while en route to or from work, primary consideration must be given to the zone of employment. If the employee is injured within the zone, on property of the employer, while going to or returning from work, the general rule is that he is entitled to compensation. Hager v. State Compensation Commissioner, 112 W.Va. 492, 165 S.E. 668; Kasari v. Industrial Commission, 125 Ohio St. 410, 181 N.E. 809, 82 A. L. R. 1040. And, if injured within the zone, he may be compensated though the accident did not occur on the property of the employer. Canoy v. State Compensation Commissioner, 113 W.Va. 914, 170 S.E. 184. There, the place of injury (highway) was brought within the zone of employment by the contract between the employer and the employee.
No rule is fixed for determining the extent of the margin of time and distance from place of work, before and after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial