Injury Cases: Traveling Employee (Court of Appeals)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Court of Appeals)

Injury: Traveling Employee

Select the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site. For other issues, see our topic index to Ohio workers’ compensation decisions.

Ardrey v. Toledo Area Regional Transit Auth. (10/29/04)

Bus driver injured after parking in company lot and taking another bus to location where she was to start driving is entitled to participate under both the totality of the circumstances and the zone of employment tests.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Pietrykowski
Appellate District: 6

Avery v. Manitowoc Nevada Group Toledo Ship & Repair (7/3/03)

Fixed situs employee is not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for injury during travel to employment where travel was not for benefit of employer.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Bryant
Appellate District: 3

Bartley v. Bagshaw Enterprises, Inc. (4/26/04)

Injuries resulting from car accident while employee was driving home from regularly scheduled meeting at employer’s office did not occur in the course of, or arising out of, employment and was not compensable.

Vote: 2-0
Opinion by: Judge Kline
Appellate District: 4

Bennett v. Goodremont’s, Inc. (6/19/09)

Going-and-coming rule does not bar traveling salesman from participating in fund for injury resulting from car accident while driving to company’s office to demonstrate equipment to a prospective customer.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Handwork
Appellate District: 6

Bowden v. Cleveland Hts.-Univ. Hts. Schools (12/20/07)

Substitute teacher who was injured after fall while walking to bus stop to go to school where she was supposed to teach after mistakenly going to wrong school was not on a special mission for employer and is not entitled to participate in workers’ compensation fund for injury.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Cooney
Appellate District: 8

Brown v. Lake Erie Elec. Co. (10/12/10)

Fixed-situs employee injured in car accident while traveling to job site is not entitled to participate.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Powell
Appellate District: 12

Buck v. Melco, Inc. (12/28/09)

Material issues of genuine fact exist over whether worker injured in attack near worksite before work started was entitled to participate in workers’ compensation fund.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Shaw
Appellate District: 3

Callahan v. Proctor & Gamble Co. (9/29/08)

Worker injured outside bar after meeting with vendor was not entitled to participate in the workers’ compensation fund.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Shaw
Appellate District: 3

Carter v. R&B Pizza Co., Inc. (12/6/10)

Facts demonstrated that worker was injured in the course of her employment and was entitled to participate for injury which occurred while she was driving supplies to restaurant.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Donofrio
Appellate District: 7

Cartwright v. Conrad (8/12/05)

Injury resulting from car accident to fixed situs employee who was being driven home by co-employee was not compensable, even though co-employee stopped during trip to perform errand for employer.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Grady
Appellate District: 2

Cline v. Yellow Transp., Inc. (12/18/07)

Truck driver who was injured while going to restaurant was on personal mission and was not entitled to participate in the workers’ compensation fund.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Sadler
Appellate District: 10

Cossin v. Ohio State Home Servs., Inc. (12/4/12)

Going and coming rule does not apply to nonfixed situs employee injured in car accident while returning home; employee also demonstrated the required causal connection between the injury and employment.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Dorrian
Appellate District: 10

Crockett v. HCR Manorcare, Inc. (6/24/04)

Home health care worker who was injured in car accident while traveling from one patient to another did not suffer compensable injury; while injury was “in the course of” employment, it did not “arise out of” employment under the totality of the circumstances test and there was no special hazard caused by the employment.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Harsha
Appellate District: 4

Cunningham v. Bone Dry Waterproofing, Inc. (6/9/16)

Although painter worked at as many as five locations in a day, each of those locations was a fixed situs, so the going and coming rule applies to determine whether he is entitled to participate for an injury which occurred during travel.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Brown
Appellate District:
10

Deems v. Minute Men, Inc. (12/21/16)

Going and coming rule bars employee who worked for temporary agency from participating for injury suffered in auto accident which occurred after work when they were driving to the agency to pick up their paycheck.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Mock
Appellate District:
 1

Franklin v. BHC Servs., Inc. (2/23/17)

Trial court improperly granted summary judgment based on the going and coming rule against home health aide injured while traveling from one client’s site to another because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether she was a fixed situs employee and, if so, whether an exception to the going and coming rule applies.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Blackmon
Appellate District:
 8

Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid Ohio (4/19/13)

Court improperly granted summary judgment against employee injured while traveling for her employment because even though employee had dual intentions (including personal and business travel), she had not departed from her business travel at time accident occurred.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Gwin
Appellate District: 5

Gilham v. Cambridge Home Health Care, Inc. (6/15/09)

Going-and-coming rule bars home health care aide from participating in the workers’ compensation fund for injury sustained while traveling from one client’s home to another.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Edwards
Appellate District: 5

Green v. Marc Glassman, Inc. (12/29/17)

Fixed situs employee not entitled to participate for injury while traveling home from work.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Grendall
Appellate District: 11

Gullie v. Cuyahoga Cty. (10/2/14)

Whether worker was fixed-situs employee (subject to going and coming rule) depends on consideration of overall job duties, not just what duties the worker performed on the day of injury.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by:
Judge Kilbane
Appellate District: 8

Holter v. Western Reserve Telephone Co. (6/21/02)

Worker injured while traveling to employment in own vehicle was not entitled to workers’ compensation because injury did not occur in course of, and arising out of employment.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Abele
Appellate District: 4

Jones v. Multicare Health & Educational Servs., Inc. (8/28/14)

In-home healthcare provider injured in car accident when returning to pharmacy from lunch in order to pick up prescription for a patient is not entitled to participate for injury because injury occurred during a “personal frolic” rather than the employment.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Gallagher
Appellate District: 8

Jones v. Multicare Health & Educational Servs., Inc. (2/28/13)

Jury could find that home health care worker injured in accident which occurred when driving from lunch break to pick up prescription for client was injured in the course of and arising out of employment.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Boyle
Appellate District: 8

Jones v. USF Holland, Inc. (5/17/11)

Injury resulting from slip in bathroom of hotel paid for by employer occurred in the course of employment, but did not arise out of employment and therefore was not compensable.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Klatt
Appellate District: 10

Kershner v. High Point Home Health, Ltd. (4/5/13)

Jury could find home health care worker injured in slip on ice while entering her car entitled to participate because she planned to make a required telephone call to her employer before leaving her client’s house, which could satisfy the requirements of the going and coming rule.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Fain
Appellate District: 2

Klamert v. Cleveland (2/11/10)

Going and coming rule only applies if the employee is a fixed situs employee; whether employee is a fixed situs employee depends on overall employment activities, not limited analysis of duties at time of injury.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Celebrezze
Appellate District: 8

Lippolt v. Hague (9/30/08)

Injury in hotel parking lot occurred in course of employment and was compensable when injured worker was required to travel as part of his work and went to hotel directly from last business stop made on behalf of employer.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge French
Appellate District: 10

Luciano v. NCC Solutions, Inc. (2/14/13)

Going and coming rule bars employee from participating for injury resulting from car accident which occurred while returning to work from performing personal errands.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Gallagher
Appellate District: 8

Mackell v. Armco, Inc. (6/24/02)

Sleep deprivation is a common condition, and does not meet the requirements necessary to constitute an injury or occupational disease for workers’ compensation purposes; nor did evidence indicate that claimant’s travel to work fell within the special hazard exception to the going and coming rule.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Edwards
Appellate District: 5

Masden v. CCI Supply, Inc. (8/29/08)

Traveling employee injured in fight started by another at a hotel he was required to stay in by employer is entitled to participate for injury.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Brogan
Appellate District: 2

Miller v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (3/31/10)

An employee who was injured after falling in a parking lot when leaving restaurant where he had taken a 15 minute paid coffee break is entitled to participate in the workers compensation system, the going and coming rule does not apply.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam
Appellate District: 9

Mitchell v. Cambridge Home Health Care, Inc. (9/10/08)

Going and coming rule applies to home health care worker who only worked at home of one patient and who was only paid for time worked at home of patient.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Whitmore
Appellate District: 9

Molton v. Kroger Co. (2/17/17)

Going and coming rule bars compensation to dependant of worker killed when hit by a vehicle  as she was walking in a public street from her place of employment to a bus stop.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Hall
Appellate District:
 2

Moss v. Conrad (4/16/04)

Home health care worker who worked at specific location was injured when her car was struck while she was waiting to turn into client’s driveway. Compensation denied because health care worker was a fixed-situs employee and no exceptions to the going-and-coming rule apply.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Abele
Appellate District: 4

Oberhauser v. Mabe (7/27/09)25

Dependents not entitled to participate when teacher was killed while travelling to seminar which she had registered for on her own and the school district she worked for did not have any involvement in her decision to attend the seminar.

Vote: 3-0 Opinion by: Judge Powell
Appellate District: 12

Osten v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (12/29/17)

Travelling employee who was injured while on personal errand is not entitled to participate.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Welbaum
Appellate District: 2

Palette v. Fowler Elec. Co. (12/8/14)

Worker who begins working after arriving at a specific location is a fixed-situs employee, and the going and coming rule bars compensation for an injury while traveling to that location, even if the employer directs them to work at a different location every day.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Grendell
Appellate District: 11

Price v. Goodwill Industries of Akron, Ohio, Inc. (2/18/11)

Going and coming rule applied to bar compensation to fixed situs employee who suffered injury in car accident while driving to training at a different location than her normal work site.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Hoffman
Appellate District: 5

Rantamaki v. Conrad (3/3/06)

Police officer injured while slipping on ice when leaving his house to work overtime was not injured “in the course of”, or “arising out of”, his employment and was therefore not entitled to participate in the workers’ compensation fund.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Rice
Appellate District: 11

Rees v. Univ. Hosps. (4/13/17)

Nurse, injured while returning to CPR class required by her employer from trip to car to get required materials was injured in the course of, and arising out of, her employment under the “special mission” exception to the going and coming rule.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Celebrezze
Appellate District:
8

Richardson v. Conrad (3/18/04)

Injury after work hours resulting from car accident when driving to hotel paid for by employer from restaurant where employee had dinner which was not paid for by employer was not compensable workers’ compensation claim.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Bowman
Appellate District: 10

Sammetinger v. Kirk Bros. Co., Inc. (4/5/10)

Totality of circumstances demonstrates that truck provided by employer was worker’s mobile workplace, therefore injury resulting from accident while driving home in truck occurred in the course of , and arising out of, employment.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Shaw
Appellate District: 3

Samuel v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2/2/17)

Where no evidence indicated that employer required worker to submit documentation related to leave in person, injury which occurred when worker went to employer’s location solely for the purpose of dropping off documentation did not occur in the course of employment.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Mays
Appellate District:
 8

Seese v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (12/11/09)

Worker injured while traveling to place of employment is not entitled to participate for injuries resulting from car accident when no exceptions to the going-and-coming rule applied.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Trapp
Appellate District: 11

Smith v. Carnegie Auto Parts, Inc. (3/8/07)

Injured worker was a fixed-situs employee, even though she had stuffed envelopes at home prior to going to work; therefore, injury while travelling to work was not compensable.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Gallagher
Appellate District: 8

Smith v. City of Akron (9/22/04)

Court properly determined that landscaper who worked for city was a fixed-situs employee.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Batchelder
Appellate District: 9

Switzer v. Sewell Motor Express Co. (8/3/09)

Genuine material issues of fact existed as to whether truck driver who was injured in accident after making detour to drop co-worker off was injured in the course of his employment to permit jury to hear case.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Ringland
Appellate District: 12

Tressler v. Specialty Transp. Serv., Inc. (9/16/05)

Driver of van who was injured while clearing snow off of van in her driveway was entitled to compensation because injury occurred “in course of” and “arising out of” employment.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Parish
Appellate District: 6

Watkins v. Metrohealth Sys. (10/31/02)

Employee injured in accident in parking garage did not fall within any exception to the going and coming rule and therefore was not entitled to participate in the workers’ compensation fund.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Corrigan
Appellate District: 8

Werden v. Admr., B.W.C. (3/13/03)

Exception to going and coming rule might apply to injured worker who was required to travel to customer’s work sites in order to perform his job duties; even if exception did not apply, injured worker might still be eligible for workers’ compensation if travel to work site was part of employment.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Donofrio
Appellate District: 7

West v. Lukjan Metals Prods., Inc. (10/30/09)

Worker injured in car accident while driving from employer’s plant to lodging paid for by employer, in rental car paid for by employer, driven by co-employee, not barred by the going-and-coming rule from participating in the workers’ compensation fund.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Grendell
Appellate District: 11

Wining v. Unique Ventures Group, L.L.C. (5/18/11)

Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of estate of deceased worker who was killed while travelling to his place of employment to provide keys to a co-employee because he was on a special mission for the employer; because he was on a special mission the going and coming rule did not apply.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Vukovich
Appellate District: 7

Woods v. Onesource Employee Management, LLC (6/20/17)

Evidence supported trial court’s decision that injury occurred outside the scope of employment.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Tyack
Appellate District:
10

Woodard v. Cassens Transport Co. (9/4/12)

Traveling employee is in course of employment continuously during employment-related trip, except when on personal errand; car hauler who suffered injury in hotel room paid for by employer was on personal mission and not entitled to participate.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Preston
Appellate District: 3