Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.
This case presents the court with two distinct yet interrelated issues: (1) whether the Cubby employees were fixed-situs employees within the meaning of the coming-and-going rule despite the temporary nature of their work assignments and, if they were, (2) whether the employees nevertheless overcame the presumption embodied in the coming-and-going rule by specifically demonstrating that their injuries occurred “in the course of’ and “arose out of’ the employment. We hold that the Cubby employees were fixed-situs employees within the meaning of the coming-and-going rule, but nevertheless…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Fisher v. MayfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Lord v. DaughertyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Bralley v. DaughertyOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. WellsOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- MTD Products, Inc. v. RobatinOhio Supreme Court · 1991
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by96 opinions
- Theobald v. University of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Bennett v. Admr., Ohio Bureau of Workers' CompensationOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing AuthorityOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
- Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid-Ohio (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- Freeman v. BrooksOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
91 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.