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.
14 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc.green2 sentences2021See Ruckman at 120 (entitlement to workers' compensation coverage is not contingent on the injury occurring in the actual performance of work duties). {¶ 17} Second, we find Thephasith to be distinguishable on the issue of control. 2006“That is not the case, however, where, as here, the employee travels to the premises of one of his employer’s customers to satisfy a business obligation.” Id. {¶ 19} As for the “arising out of’ element of R.C. 4123.01(C), the Supreme Court has identified three limited tests for determining whether the required causal connection exists: (1) the zone-of-employment exception, (2) the special-hazard exception, and (3) the totality-of-the-circumstances exception. | 2 | 3 |
MTD Products, Inc. v. Robatingreen2 sentences2017The zone-of-employment exception {¶ 12} An injury is compensable if it occurs within the “zone of employment.” MTD Prods., 61 Ohio St.3d at 69 , 572 N.E.2d 661 . 2017The zone-of-employment exception {¶ 12} An injury is compensable if it occurs within the “zone of employment.” MTD Prods., 61 Ohio St.3d at 69 , 572 N.E.2d 661 . | 1 | 7 |
Janicki v. Kforce.Com, Inc.green2 sentences2021Montgomery No. 25657, 2013-Ohio-4075, ¶ 7 ; Janicki v. Kforce.com, 167 Ohio App.3d 572 , 2006-Ohio-3370 , 855 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). {¶ 20} The Ohio Supreme Court has identified three limited exceptions to the application of the coming-and-going rule: (1) the zone of employment exception; (2) the special hazard exception; and (3) the totality of the circumstances exception. 2021Montgomery No. 25657, 2013-Ohio-4075, ¶ 7 ; Janicki v. Kforce.com, 167 Ohio App.3d 572 , 2006-Ohio-3370 , 855 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). {¶ 20} The Ohio Supreme Court has identified three limited exceptions to the application of the coming-and-going rule: (1) the zone of employment exception; (2) the special hazard exception; and (3) the totality of the circumstances exception. | 1 | 3 |
Hicks v. Safelite Group, Inc.green2 sentences2024See Hicks v. Safelite Group, Inc., 2021-Ohio-3044 , 178 N.E.3d 63 , ¶ 16 (10th Dist.). 2024See Hicks v. Safelite Group, Inc., 2021-Ohio-3044 , 178 N.E.3d 63 , ¶ 16 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Remer v. Conradgreen1 sentence2009See, e.g., Remer, 153 Ohio App.3d 507 , 794 N.E.2d 766 (claim allowed for grocery store employee who fell on cart ramp at entrance to store where she had come to work before she clocked in); Thompson v. Crestmont Nursing Home N. Corp. (Nov. 21, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79385, 2001 WL 1479238 (claim allowed for employee attacked by co-worker in front of nursing home before starting shift); Rock (claim allowed for employee who slipped and fell in parking lot upon return from a personal errand and before clocking in). {¶ 20} In this case, the trial court applied the coming-and-going rule, because | 1 | 1 |
Sebek v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co.green2 sentences2003See, also, Sebek v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co. (1947), 148 Ohio St. 693, 698 , 36 O.O. 282 , 76 N.E.2d 892 . {¶ 11} Kroger argues next that the zone-of-employment exception does not apply because of the timing of Renter’s injury: she was not leaving after completing a work day. 2003See, also, Sebek v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co. (1947), 148 Ohio St. 693, 698 , 36 O.O. 282 , 76 N.E.2d 892 . {¶ 11} Kroger argues next that the zone-of-employment exception does not apply because of the timing of Renter’s injury: she was not leaving after completing a work day. | 1 | 1 |
Freire v. Matson Navigation Co.green2 sentences1971See Freire v. Matson Navigation Co., 19 Cal. 2d 8 , 118 P. 2d 809 . 1971See Freire v. Matson Navigation Co., 19 Cal. 2d 8 , 118 P. 2d 809 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 22 . 2003A finding that the employer exercised control over the area in which the incident occurred is a significant factor in establishing whether the employee was within the "zone of employment." MTD Prods. , supra ; Marlowe , supra . {¶ 14} The Second District Court of Appeals has previously defined "control" for purposes of the zone of employment exception. | 2 | 2003–2018 |
Molton v. Kroger Co.
neutral
1 sentence2021Montgomery No. 27184, 2017-Ohio-565, ¶ 10 , citing Janicki at ¶ 19. {¶ 21} The zone-of-employment exception renders an injury compensable if it occurred within the zone of employment. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Foster v. Bur. of Workers' Comp.
neutral
1 sentence2021Montgomery No. 25657, 2013-Ohio-4075, ¶ 7 ; Janicki v. Kforce.com, 167 Ohio App.3d 572 , 2006-Ohio-3370 , 855 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). {¶ 20} The Ohio Supreme Court has identified three limited exceptions to the application of the coming-and-going rule: (1) the zone of employment exception; (2) the special hazard exception; and (3) the totality of the circumstances exception. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Meszaros v. Legal News Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences2017Accordingly, under the zone-of- employment test, an employee is within the zone of her employment if the parking location “is under the employer’s control and the street is the sole access route to the place of employment.” Id. at ¶ 28, quoting Meszaros v. Legal News Publishing Co., 138 Ohio App.3d 645, 647 , 742 N.E.2d 158 (8th Dist.2000). {¶ 14} But “[i]f the employee is injured on the public street while traveling from a lot not owned or operated by the employer, which the employees were not required to park in, the employee was not injured in the zone of employment.” Meszaros at 647 . 2017Accordingly, under the zone-of- employment test, an employee is within the zone of her employment if the parking location “is under the employer’s control and the street is the sole access route to the place of employment.” Id. at ¶ 28, quoting Meszaros v. Legal News Publishing Co., 138 Ohio App.3d 645, 647 , 742 N.E.2d 158 (8th Dist.2000). {¶ 14} But “[i]f the employee is injured on the public street while traveling from a lot not owned or operated by the employer, which the employees were not required to park in, the employee was not injured in the zone of employment.” Meszaros at 647 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Pursley v. Mbna Corp., Unpublished Decision (3-29-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2007Thus, "[w]hether the employer benefitted from the employee's presence at the scene is one of the considerations in applying the totality of the circumstances exception to the coming and going rule, but not a consideration when applying the zone of employment analysis." Id., citing MTD , supra, at 68 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Bralley v. Daugherty
green
2 sentences2006Although the injury occurred on a public street, the court noted that the employee “could not reach the plant entrance without crossing the public street.” {¶ 28} As summarized by the Eighth District Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court authority thus states that under the zone-of-employment test, “[i]f the area is under the employer’s control and the street is the sole access route to the place of employment, the employee is within this ‘zone of employment.’ Bralley v. Daugherty (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 302 , 15 O.O.3d 359 , 401 N.E.2d 448 . 2006Although the injury occurred on a public street, the court noted that the employee “could not reach the plant entrance without crossing the public street.” {¶ 28} As summarized by the Eighth District Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court authority thus states that under the zone-of-employment test, “[i]f the area is under the employer’s control and the street is the sole access route to the place of employment, the employee is within this ‘zone of employment.’ Bralley v. Daugherty (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 302 , 15 O.O.3d 359 , 401 N.E.2d 448 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Powers v. Frank Z Chevrolet
green
2 sentences2006See MTD Products, Inc., 61 Ohio St.3d at 69 , 572 N.E.2d 661 ; Powers, 100 Ohio App.3d at 723 , 654 N.E.2d 1053 . 2006See MTD Products, Inc., 61 Ohio St.3d at 69 , 572 N.E.2d 661 ; Powers, 100 Ohio App.3d at 723 , 654 N.E.2d 1053 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.