Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Fisher v. Mayfieldgreen2 sentences2008Id. at 279 . {¶ 11} The trial court's analysis focused primarily on application of the three Lord factors. 2000The enumerated factors of the Lord test "are not intended to be exhaustive and the totality-of-the-circumstances test may continue to evolve." Ruckman at 122 , citing Fisher v. Mayfield (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 275 , 279 , fn.2. | 5 | 9 |
Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc.green2 sentences2007"That test requires primary analysis of the following facts and circumstances: `(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.'" Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 117 , 122 , 689 N.E.2d 917 , quoting Lord , supra, at syllabus. {¶ 14} "An employee's failure to satisfy the three enumerated factors of the Lord test, however, does not foreclose further consideration. 2007"That test requires primary analysis of the following facts and circumstances: `(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.'" Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 117 , 122 , 689 N.E.2d 917 , quoting Lord , supra, at syllabus. {¶ 14} "An employee's failure to satisfy the three enumerated factors of the Lord test, however, does not foreclose further consideration. | 1 | 9 |
Cline v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 07ap-498 (12-18-2007)green2 sentences2022Accord Cline at ¶ 23 (observing that the control factor "is concerned with the degree of control over the scene, not the employee"). 2022Accord Cline at ¶ 23 (observing that the control factor "is concerned with the degree of control over the scene, not the employee"). | 1 | 1 |
Callahan v. Proctor Gamble Co., 1-08-19 (9-29-2008)green2 sentences2014Allen No. 1-08-19, 2008-Ohio-4954, ¶ 34 (finding the fact that business may have been briefly discussed did not give rise to any genuine issue as to whether the injured worker was within the scope of her employment for the benefit of her employment under the Lord test). 2014Allen No. 1-08-19, 2008-Ohio-4954, ¶ 34 (finding the fact that business may have been briefly discussed did not give rise to any genuine issue as to whether the injured worker was within the scope of her employment for the benefit of her employment under the Lord test). | 1 | 1 |
Moss v. Conradgreen2 sentences2005See Moss v. Conrad, 157 Ohio App.3d 47 , 2004-Ohio-2065 , 809 N.E.2d 36 , at ¶ 23 (concluding that the plaintiff's injury did not arise out of her employment when the employer had no control over the city streets where the accident occurred, when her presence at the accident scene "served little benefit to her employer [because] * * * the accident did not `occur at a location where [she] could carry on [her] employer's business,'" and when she was not `on the clock' at the time of the accident"); see, also, Bartley v. Bagshaw Enterprises, Inc., Highland App. No. 03CA6, 2004-Ohio-2182 . 2005See Moss v. Conrad, 157 Ohio App.3d 47 , 2004-Ohio-2065 , 809 N.E.2d 36 , at ¶ 23 (concluding that the plaintiff's injury did not arise out of her employment when the employer had no control over the city streets where the accident occurred, when her presence at the accident scene "served little benefit to her employer [because] * * * the accident did not `occur at a location where [she] could carry on [her] employer's business,'" and when she was not `on the clock' at the time of the accident"); see, also, Bartley v. Bagshaw Enterprises, Inc., Highland App. No. 03CA6, 2004-Ohio-2182 . | 1 | 1 |
Bartley v. Bagshaw Enterprises, Inc., Unpublished Decision (4-26-2004)green2 sentences2005See Moss v. Conrad, 157 Ohio App.3d 47 , 2004-Ohio-2065 , 809 N.E.2d 36 , at ¶ 23 (concluding that the plaintiff's injury did not arise out of her employment when the employer had no control over the city streets where the accident occurred, when her presence at the accident scene "served little benefit to her employer [because] * * * the accident did not `occur at a location where [she] could carry on [her] employer's business,'" and when she was not `on the clock' at the time of the accident"); see, also, Bartley v. Bagshaw Enterprises, Inc., Highland App. No. 03CA6, 2004-Ohio-2182 . 2005See Moss v. Conrad, 157 Ohio App.3d 47 , 2004-Ohio-2065 , 809 N.E.2d 36 , at ¶ 23 (concluding that the plaintiff's injury did not arise out of her employment when the employer had no control over the city streets where the accident occurred, when her presence at the accident scene "served little benefit to her employer [because] * * * the accident did not `occur at a location where [she] could carry on [her] employer's business,'" and when she was not `on the clock' at the time of the accident"); see, also, Bartley v. Bagshaw Enterprises, Inc., Highland App. No. 03CA6, 2004-Ohio-2182 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lord v. Daugherty
green
2 sentences2013Appellant argues that “totality of the circumstances” test established by the Ohio Supreme Court in Lord v. Daugherty, 66 Ohio St.2d 441 , 423 N.E.2d 96 (1981), supports the conclusion that a sufficient causal connection exists between his injury and his employment to justify his participation in the fund. {¶15} The “totality of the circumstances” test examines the following facts and circumstances: “(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 2013Appellant argues that “totality of the circumstances” test established by the Ohio Supreme Court in Lord v. Daugherty, 66 Ohio St.2d 441 , 423 N.E.2d 96 (1981), supports the conclusion that a sufficient causal connection exists between his injury and his employment to justify his participation in the fund. {¶15} The “totality of the circumstances” test examines the following facts and circumstances: “(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 | 8 | 1998–2017 |
Griffith v. Miamisburg, 08ap-557 (12-16-2008)
green
2 sentences2014Franklin No. 08AP-557, 2008-Ohio-6611, ¶ 10 , citing Fisher at 279, fn. 2 . {¶26} “These guiding principles, while construed liberally in favor of the employee, must nevertheless be measured against the purpose of Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation Act.” Keating v. Classic East, Inc., 11th Dist. 2014Franklin No. 08AP-557, 2008-Ohio-6611, ¶ 10 , citing Fisher at 279, fn. 2 . {¶26} “These guiding principles, while construed liberally in favor of the employee, must nevertheless be measured against the purpose of Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation Act.” Keating v. Classic East, Inc., 11th Dist. | 2 | 2012–2014 |
Newman v. Bennett
green
2 sentences1998“If an employee is in the service of his employer at the time an accident occurs by reason of risk or hazard inherent in the use of a public road, it follows that the resultant injury or death arose out of the employment.” Newman, supra, 212 Kan. at 569 , 512 P.2d at 503 . 1998“If an employee is in the service of his employer at the time an accident occurs by reason of risk or hazard inherent in the use of a public road, it follows that the resultant injury or death arose out of the employment.” Newman, supra, 212 Kan. at 569 , 512 P.2d at 503 . | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid-Ohio (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid-Ohio, 142 Ohio St.3d 425 , 2014-Ohio-4531, ¶ 14 , citing Fisher at 279, fn. 2 . 2022Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid-Ohio, 142 Ohio St.3d 425 , 2014-Ohio-4531, ¶ 14 , citing Fisher at 279, fn. 2 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Industrial Commission v. Ahern
green
1 sentence2007Comm. v. Ahern (1928), 119 Ohio St. 41 , 6 Ohio Law Abs. 385 , 162 N.E. 272 , paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. {¶ 16} In support of his assignments of error, appellant argues that the trial court narrowly focused on the three enumerated Lord factors and refused to consider the totality of the circumstances, including appellee's prohibition of appellant driving the company-owned tractor if food could be obtained within walking distance, the benefit that having a rested driver afforded appellee, the fact that appellee was only out of town because of his work, and the benefit appellee re | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Contie
green
1 sentence2007Comm. v. Ahern (1928), 119 Ohio St. 41 , 6 Ohio Law Abs. 385 , 162 N.E. 272 , paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. {¶ 16} In support of his assignments of error, appellant argues that the trial court narrowly focused on the three enumerated Lord factors and refused to consider the totality of the circumstances, including appellee's prohibition of appellant driving the company-owned tractor if food could be obtained within walking distance, the benefit that having a rested driver afforded appellee, the fact that appellee was only out of town because of his work, and the benefit appellee re | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Pure Oil Co. v. Turner
neutral
1 sentence2007Comm. v. Ahern (1928), 119 Ohio St. 41 , 6 Ohio Law Abs. 385 , 162 N.E. 272 , paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. {¶ 16} In support of his assignments of error, appellant argues that the trial court narrowly focused on the three enumerated Lord factors and refused to consider the totality of the circumstances, including appellee's prohibition of appellant driving the company-owned tractor if food could be obtained within walking distance, the benefit that having a rested driver afforded appellee, the fact that appellee was only out of town because of his work, and the benefit appellee re | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Carrick v. Riser Foods, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Rather, the Act is intended to protect employees against the risks and hazards incident to the performance of their duties. * * * The mere fact that an injury occurred during employment is not sufficient to establish entitlement to benefits." Carrick v. Riser Foods (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 573 , 577 , 685 N.E.2d 1261 . 2007Rather, the Act is intended to protect employees against the risks and hazards incident to the performance of their duties. * * * The mere fact that an injury occurred during employment is not sufficient to establish entitlement to benefits." Carrick v. Riser Foods (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 573 , 577 , 685 N.E.2d 1261 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Bralley v. Daugherty
green
2 sentences1999The trial court also discussed whether compensation was appropriate under the "zone of employment" exception articulated in Bralley v. Daugherty (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 302 . 1999The trial court also discussed whether compensation was appropriate under the "zone of employment" exception articulated in Bralley v. Daugherty (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 302 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Frishkorn v. Flowers
green
2 sentences1999Appellant cites us to Frishkorn v. Flowers (1971), 26 Ohio App.2d 165 . 1999Appellant cites us to Frishkorn v. Flowers (1971), 26 Ohio App.2d 165 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Durbin v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation
neutral
2 sentences1998In Durbin v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 62 , the First Appellate District did not even address each of the Lord factors, but appears instead to have applied a "but for" test to determine whether a traveling employee's injury arose out of employment. 1998In Durbin v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 62 , the First Appellate District did not even address each of the Lord factors, but appears instead to have applied a "but for" test to determine whether a traveling employee's injury arose out of employment. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Tamarkin Co. v. Wheeler
green
2 sentences1994We are at a loss to understand what the employer could have reasonably done to prevent Wheeler from cutting himself during the impromptu repair job. * * * ” Id., 81 Ohio App.3d at 235 , 610 N.E.2d at 1044 . 1994We are at a loss to understand what the employer could have reasonably done to prevent Wheeler from cutting himself during the impromptu repair job. * * * ” Id., 81 Ohio App.3d at 235 , 610 N.E.2d at 1044 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.