Legal Question in Business Law in Ohio

Re: employment laws

I would have her contact a specialist in worker's compensation/

Re: employment laws

Dear Troubled Employee: The important question is,: What was your spouse doing at the time of the accident? That is, in what activity, on behalf of the employer was she engaged? And, was such activity for the employer a customary part of her employment duties for the employer?

If she was merely travelling to or from the employer's premises, there may be no liability on the part of the employer. Also, was the driver-employee negligent in such accident? Further, what does the employment agreement provide, or is this an "at-will" employee without any such provisional guarantees of accident insurance coverage as part of the employment conditions?

All of these factors may materially affect the employer's duty to insure such unfortunate event.

Consult an attorney.

Good luck.

Re: employment laws

Dear Troubled Employee, This is my additional response to your inquiry. In my Construction Lawletter issue to be published next month, I wrote in Issue 2006-2: February, 2006

COMMUTING EMPLOYEE; INJURIES COMPENSABLE, WHEN.

(Part 2 of 2, Concluding from previous issue).

{ 19} Ordinarily, "an employee's commute to a fixed work site bears no meaningful relation to his employment contract and serves no purpose of the employer's business. That is not the case, however, where * * * the employee travels to the premises of one of his employer's customers to satisfy a business obligation." Id. at 121. If the employee sustains his injuries off his employer's premises, then to show that he received his injuries in the course of employment, "`the employee, acting within the scope of his employment, must, at the time of his injury, have been engaged in the promotion of his employer's business and in the furtherance of his affairs.'" Id. at 121, quoting Indus. Comm. v. Bateman (1933), 126 Ohio St. 279, 185 N.E. 50.

{ 20} "[P]ayment for travel is commonly considered to be a key factor in determining whether an employee was in the course of his or her employment while traveling to a job site." Id. at 121 fn.1 (citation omitted). However, it should not "serve as a leading factor in the course-of-employment inquiry." Id.

{ 21} In Ruckman, the court determined that although the employees were fixed situs employees, they nevertheless showed that they received their injuries in the course of employment. The court stated: "The nature of the rigging business requires that drilling be done on a customer's premises. That is a necessary condition of the work contract. The riggers set up on a customer's premises, drill a well and, after completion, disassemble the derrick for transport to the next job site. Consequently, while coming to and going from a customer's premises, these employees are engaged in the promotion and furtherance of their employer's business as a condition of their employment." Id. at 121. ***

{ 24} Courts use a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether an injury arose out of employment. See id. at 122, citing Lord v. Daugherty (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 441, 423 N.E.2d 96. A court should review the following factors: "`(1) the proximity of the scene of the accident to the place of employment, (2) the degree of control the employer had over the scene of the accident, and (3) the benefit the employer received from the injured employee's presence at the scene of the accident.'" Id., quoting Lord, syllabus. ***Habermehl v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2005-Ohio-6765.

Work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.

The Peter Principle Morrow 69

See an Attorney ASAP, and be prepared to provide the answers to the important questions controlling the employer's liability for your accident.

Good luck.