Baughman v. Eaton Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1967
- Kasari v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1932
3Cited by26 opinions
- MTD Products, Inc. v. RobatinOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Littlefield v. Pillsbury Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- Delker v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1989
- Fletcher v. Northwest Mechanical Contractors, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1991
- Janicki v. Kforce.Com, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2006
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.