2017 Ohio 7110
Oh. Ct. App. 6th Dist. Sandusk...2017Background
- Taylor (employee) arrived ~15 minutes before shift, parked in employee lot, and walked from the lot to the HealthLink building via a commonly used shortcut across grass and down a curb.
- As she stepped from a five-to-six inch curb onto the parking lot on April 22, 2015, she fell and fractured her right femur.
- Taylor initially reported wind blew her coat and caused the fall; later she attributed the fall to a damaged curb visible at the scene. Employer (ProMedica) disputes causation, arguing wind caused the fall.
- Industrial Commission awarded Taylor workers’ compensation; ProMedica appealed to Sandusky County Common Pleas; trial court granted Taylor summary judgment; ProMedica appealed.
- Central legal question: whether Taylor’s injury occurred "in the course of" and "arose out of" her employment (R.C. 4123.01(C)), focusing on causal connection and applicability of the "zone of employment" / coming-and-going analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Taylor's Argument | ProMedica's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor's injury "arose out of" employment (causal connection) | Injury occurred on employer premises during ingress; even if cause was wind or curb, a sufficient causal connection exists under totality-of-circumstances and neutral-risk principles | Cause of fall is disputed (wind vs. curb); if wind caused it, employer lacks control and injury is non-compensable | Court held injury arose out of employment under totality-of-circumstances; compensable regardless of whether wind or damaged curb caused fall |
| Whether Griffin/zone-of-employment and coming-and-going rule apply | Injury occurred on employer premises within zone of employment; Griffin supports compensability for on-premises injuries regardless of special hazard | Argued trial court misapplied Griffin and should use totality-of-circumstances rather than relying on zone test; factual dispute about cause precludes summary judgment | Court applied totality-of-circumstances (Fisher/Lord/Ruckman) but concluded the coming-and-going rule was inapplicable because injury occurred on employer premises; all three Lord factors satisfied and summary judgment for Taylor affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Hydra-Matic Div. of Gen. Motors Corp., 39 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 1988) (injury on employer premises compensable irrespective of special hazard)
- Fisher v. Mayfield, 49 Ohio St.3d 275 (Ohio 1990) (distinguishes "in the course of" and "arising out of" tests and frames totality-of-circumstances factors)
- Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid-Ohio, 142 Ohio St.3d 425 (Ohio 2014) (directs application of Fisher and totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- Lord v. Daugherty, 66 Ohio St.2d 441 (Ohio 1981) (syllabus: proximity, employer control, and employer benefit factors for causation)
- MTD Prods., Inc. v. Robatin, 61 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio 1991) (explains general coming-and-going rule)
- Merz v. Industrial Commission, 134 Ohio St. 36 (Ohio 1938) (zone of employment defined as employer premises and area about it)