Ward v. Tillman
Decision Date | 20 March 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 3-178A17,3-178A17 |
Citation | 386 N.E.2d 1003,179 Ind.App. 626 |
Parties | William WARD and Margarita Ward, Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. Ronald TILLMAN, Appellee (Defendant Below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Terrence M. Rubino, Hammond, for appellants.
Patrick J. Galvin and W. Patrick Downes, of Galvin, Galvin & Leeney, Hammond, for appellee.
On August 10, 1976, William Ward sustained serious injuries as the result of a collision with Ronald Tillman on the parking lot of Inland Steel Corporation of East Chicago. Ward and Tillman were both employees of Inland Steel. Ward and his wife, Margarita, filed a complaint for damages against Tillman.
The trial court granted Tillman's motion for summary judgment and entered the following order:
The sole issue presented by the Wards for our review is whether or not the trial court erred as a matter of law in its determination that a common law action brought by an employee against another employee as a result of a traffic accident on the employer's parking lot is barred by the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act.
We affirm.
The Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act, IC 1971, 22-3-2-1, Et seq. (Burns Code Ed., Supp.1978), is social legislation based upon a realization of the obligation which industry owes to its workers. The derogation of the defenses available to an employer at common law is balanced by the provisions of the Act which limit recovery by an employee exclusively to the remedies provided for in the Act. See Small, Workmen's Compensation Law in Indiana (1950). 1
The Wards insist that the accident with Tillman did not arise out of and in the course of their mutual employment; hence, they are not limited to the exclusiveness of remedies provisions of the Act. 2 First, they assert that neither Ward, who was leaving from work, nor Tillman, who was arriving for work, should be considered in an employee status at the time of the accident. Additionally, they urge us to view the employment duties of Ward and Tillman as restricted to the plant proper and not as carrying over to a company parking area accessible to the public.
The findings of fact are not disputed by the Wards. When such facts afford a single inference, the issue is one of law for the court to decide. Arford v. State (1959), 129 Ind.App. 312, 156 N.E.2d 401.
The liability of employers has been extended beyond the immediate job site. An employer may be liable for those injuries which occur off the immediate job site if the property is maintained for an employment-connected use. For example, where a street is maintained by the employer for employee use. U.S. Steel Corp. v. Brown (1967), 142 Ind.App. 18, 231 N.E.2d 839 (transfer denied); Reed et al. v. Brown et al. (1958), 129 Ind.App. 75, 152 N.E.2d 257 (transfer denied). Public policy under the Act favors the liberal construction of making awards for accidents involving the ingress and egress of employees to their work premises...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Milledge v. Oaks
...injury occurred immediately after employee "clocked-out" but while present on employer-controlled parking lot); Ward v. Tillman, 179 Ind. App. 626, 386 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (1979) ("[L]iability of employers has been extended beyond the immediate job site.... Accidents resulting from the ingres......
-
Evans v. Yankeetown Dock Corp.
...have recognized that the workmen's compensation remedies can apply to injuries received before or after work. In Ward v. Tillman (1979), 179 Ind.App. 626, 386 N.E.2d 1003, a tort action between co-employees, the parties agreed that the plaintiff was leaving from work and the defendant arriv......
-
Wine-Settergren v. Lamey
...liability unaddressed by the statute." Id. at 402. Therefore, the Weldy court looked to a test enunciated in Ward v. Tillman, 179 Ind.App. 626, 631, 386 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (1979), which stated that the co-employee defendant is "in the same employ" if he "could obtain compensation benefits in......
-
Wilder v. Redd
...Massey v. Selensky, 685 P.2d 938, 940 (Mont.1984); Cottonwood Steel Corp. v. Hansen, 655 P.2d 1226 (Wyo.1982); Ward v. Tillman, 179 Ind.App. 626, 386 N.E.2d 1003 (1979); Jackson v. Hutchinson, 453 S.W.2d 269 (Ky.Ct.App.1970). This reading of the workmen's compensation laws will serve to pro......