Bungard v. Jeffers
2014 Ohio 334
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Bungard and Jeffers, co-employees at Kraton Polymers, were involved in a rear-end collision while Bungard was exiting his truck in an employer-owned parking lot adjacent to the plant.
- Bungard sued Jeffers for negligence; Jeffers admitted negligence but pleaded the affirmative defense of fellow-employee immunity under R.C. 4123.741.
- At trial the court sent the immunity/compensability issue to the jury; the jury found the accident did not occur in the course of employment and awarded Bungard economic damages only.
- Jeffers moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial; the trial court denied those motions. Jeffers appealed.
- The appellate court held that Jeffers had not properly moved for a directed verdict at trial (so sending the issue to the jury was not reversible error) but found on de novo review that the evidence established fellow-employee immunity as a matter of law.
- The court reversed the trial judgment, granted JNOV for Jeffers on the immunity issue, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Bungard's Argument | Jeffers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judge erred in submitting fellow-employee immunity/compensability to the jury (directed verdict) | Jury question appropriate; dispute of fact existed | Counsel orally asked court to take case from jury because evidence established compensability as a matter of law | No reversible error: appellant did not properly make a directed-verdict motion at trial, so submission was permissible |
| Whether JNOV should be granted because the injury was compensable under workers’ compensation, triggering R.C. 4123.741 immunity | Accident was not in course of employment; jury found non-compensable | Parking lot was employer-owned/controlled and adjacent to worksite; injury occurred in course of employment so immunity applies | Granted: evidence conclusively showed employer ownership/control and zone of employment; fellow-employee immunity applies as a matter of law |
| Whether employer compliance with workers’ compensation fund (R.C. 4123.74) must be proved by co-employee invoking immunity | Bungard argued Jeffers needed to show employer paid into fund or met self-insured requirements | R.C. 4123.741 (fellow-employee immunity) does not require co-employee to prove employer’s WC compliance | Rejected Bungard’s argument; immunity under R.C. 4123.741 does not require proof of employer contribution to fund |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 117 (workers’ compensation coming-and-going rule explained)
- MTD Products, Inc. v. Robatin, 61 Ohio St.3d 66 (coming-and-going rule; fixed-situs employee analysis)
- Donnelly v. Herron, 88 Ohio St.3d 425 (exception for employer-owned/controlled parking area adjacent to situs)
- Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 10 Ohio St.2d 18 (parking-lot compensability principle applied)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard of review for sufficiency/JNOV)