Legal Opinion

Baughman v. Eaton Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 9, 1980No. 79-1524PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellee is entitled to workers’ compensation if his injuries were suffered “in the course of, and arising out of,***[his] employment,” R. C. 4123.01(C). It is undisputed that if the injuries were sustained while appellee commuted to or from his place of employment, his injuries would not be compensable for failure to meet this statutory condition. Lohnes v. Young (1963), 175 Ohio St. 291.

Appellants contend that our past decisions holding that employee injuries are generally compensable when sustained while on an employer’s premises, see, e.g., Kasari v. Indus. Comm. (1932), 125 Ohio St. 410,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Kasari v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. MTD Products, Inc. v. RobatinOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Littlefield v. Pillsbury Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Delker v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1989
  4. Fletcher v. Northwest Mechanical Contractors, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Janicki v. Kforce.Com, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2006

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API