Thе sole question in this case is whether an employee with a fixed and limited place of emplоyment whose duties require him to return occasionally to such place in the evening after his ordinаry working hours who is injured in a motor vehicle accident while returning home from the plant after working there during the evening hours suffers an injury in the course of his employment within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
It is well settled that the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not create a general insurance fund for the compensation for injuries in general to employees but only for those injuries which оccur in the course of and arise out of the employment.
In the present action, decеdent, who had a fixed and limited place of employment, had concluded his work for his employеr and was on his way home.
It is a general rule that the traveling to and from work by an employee who has a fixed and limited place of employment is not considered to be an activity in the course of and arising out of the employment within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Simerlink v. Young, Admr., 172 Ohio St., 427; Industrial Commission v. Baker,
It is appellant’s contention that this rule is not applicable
Therefore, we must consider whether decedent’s duties were suсh as removed him from the operation of the general rule relating to travel to and from work.
The decedent was a products-control manager for appellee General Mills. He had a fixed and limited place of employment, General Mills’ plant at Toledo. It was there Ms duties fоr his employer were performed. A position such as Ms is not analogous to that of the salesman, serviceman or insurance adjuster. Such persons have no fixed place of employment, their place of employment is the area they service, the very nature of their employment requires them to go from place to place over the public highways, and the traveling to each place to work is necessarily in the course of their employment. Traveling subjects this type of employee to much greater traffic hazards than the ordinary citizen. Therefore, it can readily be seen that the case of Finnegan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., supra, is distinguishable upon the facts from the instant case.
Such is not .true of decedent; his work was performеd in and his duty to his employer extended over only this one plant. The only traveling decedent did was to and from work, from his home to the plant. His job, as such, required no other traveling, and he was thus subjected to nо greater hazards than any other member of the public.
It is urged that he had to take work home so that this should have placed such travel to and from work within the course of his employment. In Industrial Commission v. Gintert,
It is not claimed that General Mills had any duty to perform with reference to decedent’s transрortation; he provided that independently. The claim is based upon the theory that, since he was on call 24 hours a day, he was in the course of employment not only while at the plant but while traveling from the plant to his home.
In other words, an employee who has a fixed and limited place of еmployment is not in the course of his employment when traveling to and from work, even though such employee is on 24-hour call and occasionally must return to work after his ordinary working hours.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.