546 N.E.2d 424 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1988
This cause is before this court from a judgment rendered by the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.
Appellant and cross-appellee, James M. Watson, filed a timely notice of appeal asserting the following as his sole assignment of error:
"1. The Court of Common Pleas erred in granting Defendant-Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment because the C-112 Agreement is void on its face since the contract for hire was entered into in the State of Ohio in direct contradiction of the requirements set forth in Section
Appellee and cross-appellant, Toledo Labor Services, Inc., filed a cross-appeal asserting the following as its assignments of error:
"1. The court of common pleas erred in not finding that appellant's injuries were caused by his intoxication and that compensation was thus barred in R.C.
"2. Appellant's intoxication constituted an abandonment of his employment, so that his injuries incurred while in that condition did not arise out of his employment."
On or about March 26, 1985, James M. Watson applied for a position as a truck driver with Toledo Labor Services, Inc., in Toledo, Ohio.
Toledo Labor Services operates two offices in Gary, Indiana, and one in Toledo, Ohio. It is in the business of providing drivers for trucking companies but remains the employer of those drivers.
On March 27, 1985, Watson was hired by Toledo Labor Services and executed a number of documents including a C-112 agreement. Said agreement purported to select Indiana as the state for adjudication of any workers' compensation claims filed by or on behalf of Watson.
Watson was assigned to drive for Northern Steel Transport. On January *142 5, 1986, Watson was contacted by Northern Steel Transport in Toledo to haul a load to Chicago. After delivery in Chicago, he was instructed to drive to Gary, Indiana, in order to pick up another load that was to be delivered to Cleveland, Ohio. After finishing business in Chicago, Watson stopped at a restaurant for dinner. During that time, he consumed three "fishbowls" of draft beer.
After dinner, Watson began driving toward Gary, Indiana. Approximately thirty minutes to one hour after leaving Chicago and while exiting the interstate in Indiana, Watson lost control of his truck and drove off the ramp. The vehicle then flipped onto its side. Watson was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol and later pleaded guilty to said offense.
Watson subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation through Toledo Labor Services' insurance company in Indiana, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. However, that claim was denied based on the laws of Indiana which provide that injuries sustained while under the influence of alcohol during the scope of the employment cannot be compensated.
On March 5, 1986, Watson filed for workers' compensation benefits in Ohio. This claim was denied by the district hearing officer, then by the Toledo Regional Board of Review, and finally by the Industrial Commission. Said claim was denied on the basis of the C-112 agreement executed by Watson designating Indiana as the state for adjudication of workers' compensation claims.
Watson subsequently filed an appeal in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to R.C.
Watson contends that the C-112 agreement is invalid because the contract of employment was not entered into in a state other than Ohio.
R.C.
"Whenever, with respect to an employee of an employer who is subject to and has complied with sections
As stated by the trial court, the purpose of R.C.
Toledo Labor Services argues that since the situs of the contract of hire is determined by many factors, and since *143
Watson did, in fact, have many contacts with the state of Indiana, the trial court was correct in granting its motion for summary judgment since all the requirements set forth in R.C.
There is no question that the C-112 agreement executed by Watson was timely filed with the Industrial Commission and was not later modified or terminated. Furthermore, Toledo Labor Services complied with the laws of the state of Indiana in providing coverage for Watson. However, although it is true that a large portion of Watson's work was performed outside the state of Ohio, the evidence is undisputed that Watson and Toledo Labor Services entered into the contract of employment in Toledo,Ohio. R.C.
The statute does not address contracts for hire nor does it state that a number of factors may be considered in determining the situs of employment in cases such as the instant one. Rather, it specifically sets forth in clear and unequivocal terms that the contract of employment must be entered into in a state other than Ohio.
This court is not empowered to read into the law that which is not there. Miller v. Akron Public Library (C.P. 1951), 60 Ohio Law Abs. 364, 370, 96 N.E.2d 795, 798-799. Furthermore, in determining legislative intent, it is the duty of this court to give effect to the plain meaning of the language used in the statute. See Beau Brummell Ties, Inc. v. Lindley (1978),
Accordingly, we find Watson's sole assignment of error well-taken.
In its cross-appeal, Toledo Labor Services argues that R.C.
R.C.
Section
"The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts; but may, by general laws, authorize courts to carry into effect, upon such terms as shall be just and equitable, the manifest intention of parties, and officers, by curing omissions, defects, and errors, in instruments and proceedings, arising out of their want of conformity with the laws of this state."
The Ohio Supreme Court has held that this section of the Constitution only applies to laws affecting substantive rights and "* * * has no application to laws of a remedial nature providing rules of practice, courses of procedure, or methods of review. State, ex rel. Slaughter, v. Indus. Comm. (1937), *144
Toledo Labor Services maintains that R.C.
After a thorough review of existing case law, we conclude that R.C.
Toledo Labor Services contends that R.C.
Accordingly, we find Toledo Labor Services' first assignment of error not well-taken.
Toledo Labor Services further contends that Watson's voluntary intoxication rendered him incapable of performing his work and, therefore, he was not within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Toledo Labor Services relies on Phelps v.Positive Action Tool Co., supra.
Whether an employee is so impaired due to alcohol consumption that he is unable to perform his duties is clearly a question of fact. In the case sub judice, the police report states that the primary cause of the accident was that the driver's speed was unsafe for the type of road and existing conditions. The consumption of alcohol was deemed to be a contributing factor, according to the reporting officer. Therefore, there was ample evidence to deny Toledo Labor Services' motion for summary judgment based on this argument since a question of fact exists as to whether Watson was so intoxicated that he abandoned his employment.
Finally, a reviewing court is obligated to examine the record on appeal in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. See Engel v. Corrigan (1983),
Accordingly, we find Toledo Labor *145 Services' second assignment of error not well-taken.
Wherefore, we find substantial justice has not been done the party complaining, and the judgment of the court of common pleas is hereby reversed. This cause is remanded to said court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
RESNICK, P.J., and GLASSER, J., concur.
CONNORS, J., dissents.