Posted: March, 1998
Injury While Traveling to Work Covered
Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling
(2/25/98), 81 Ohio St.3d 117.Issue: Are employees who were injured in a car accident while traveling to a drilling site entitled to participate in the workers' compensation system for their injuries?
Background: This case involves three workers who were injured in a car accident, while traveling from their homes to a site where they drilled wells. There were two car accidents, each of which happened while the employees were engaged in ride- sharing arrangements. The ride-sharing arrangements were initiated by the employees. The employer had no involvement in the ride sharing.
The issues in this case involved (1) whether or not the injuries were compensable under the Ohio workers' compensation system, and (2) whether or not the ride-sharing arrangements exempted the employees from workers' compensation based on R.C. 4123.452, which provides that the fact that an injury occurred during a ridesharing arrangement does not make the injury in the course of employment.
Decision: The Supreme Court finds the injuries compensable. In so doing, the Court modifies the application of the "going and coming" rule.
The Court first indicates that an employee is subject to the going and coming rule when employment duties start only after arising after the employee arrives at a specific work location -- even if, as in the present case, the specific work location changes on a weekly or daily basis.
If an employee's work duties start only after the employee arrives at a specific site, the employee is what is called a "fixed situs" employee and is governed by the "going and coming" rule.
The Court then modified the traditional going and coming rule. The going and coming rule indicated that an injury which occurred while traveling to work was not compensable unless it occurred due to a "special hazard" caused by the employment.
The Supreme Court modified this "special hazard" rule to apply only to the "arising out of" requirement for workers' compensation. The Court required that an injured worker must independently show that the injury occurred in the "course of" employment.
In this case, the Court indicates that the "course of" employment is satisfied by the fact that the travel to the business site satisfies a business obligation.
The Court then indicated that the "special hazard" rule indicated that the "arising out of" requirement was met because of the temporary nature and constantly changing location of the drilling sites, as well as the distance of the commutes.
Finally, on the ride sharing issue, the Court finds that the ride sharing statute only means that ride sharing does not convert the ordinary commute to work into an activity "in the course of employment."
Editor’s Comment: The case contains an excellent concurring opinion, written by Justice Resnick.
The concurring opinion points out that these worksites cannot, by definition, be considered "fixed" because they are constantly changing.
Additionally, the concurrence recognizes that when the travel is an integral part of the employment, as in the present case, there is no basis for requiring application of the arising out of test, or the "special hazard" rule. The concurrence concludes this annalysis by stating:
Accordingly, I would hold that an employee who is required to report to various or constantly changing work sites is not generally subject to the going-and-coming rule. When an employee is injured during travel to an from a varable work situs, his or her injury is generally received in the course of, and arising out of, his or her employment.
This information was provided courtesy
of the Ohio
Workers'
Compensation Bulletin. Click on the case name to
view this decision on
the Supreme Court's web site.