McKenzie v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Court of Appeals

McKenzie v. Industrial Commission

155 N.E. 704, 24 Ohio App. 455, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 60, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 565

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 29, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 155 N.E. 704 (McKenzie v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKenzie v. Industrial Commission, 155 N.E. 704, 24 Ohio App. 455, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 60, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 565 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Houck, J.

This is a proceeding in error which comes into this court from the court of common pleas of Franklin county. The plaintiff, who was in the employ of the city of Columbus, was injured in an automobile accident and made application to the Industrial Commission for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Section 1465-37, et seq., General Code). His application for allow *456 anee of compensation was refused for the reason that the claimant’s injury was not sustained in the course of, or did not arise out of, his employment. To this finding of the Industrial Commission an appeal was taken to the common pleas court of Franklin county.

The case coming on for trial in the lower court, a transcript of the testimony taken before the Industrial Commission was offered by the plaintiff. Thereupon the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict, which motion the court sustained.

Question: Did the trial judge commit prejudicial error in sustaining the motion for a directed verdict ? This court must determine this question upon the testimony contained in the transcript offered in the trial. The facts as deduced from the testimony are as follows: Plaintiff was in the employ of the city of Columbus. He was to commence work on the particular morning of the injury at 7 o’clock. He went from his home on a street car to within three blocks of where he was to work, arriving there at about 6:30 a. m., and in alighting from the street car, and while attempting to cross the street, he was struck by an automobile and injured. Under the record evidence, and under all of the circumstances and surroundings in the case, we can reach but one conclusion, and that is that the claimant’s injury was not sustained in the course of, and did not arise out of, his employment. Thus finding there was nothing to submit to the jury, because that such injury was sustained in the course of, or arose out of, his employment, must be proved or admitted before the claimant would have a right to compensation.

Finding no error in the record prejudicial to the *457 rights of plaintiff in error, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Shields and Young, JJ., concur. Houck and Shields, JJ., of the Fifth Appellate District, and Young, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting in place of Allread, Ferneding and Kunkle, JJ., of the Second Appellate District.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Houck, J.

This is a proceeding in error which comes into this court from the court of common pleas of Franklin county. The plaintiff, who was in the employ of the city of Columbus, was injured in an automobile accident and made application to the Industrial Commission for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Section 1465-37, et seq., General Code). His application for allow *456 anee of compensation was refused for the reason that the claimant’s injury was not sustained in the course of, or did not arise out of, his employment. To this finding of the Industrial Commission an appeal was taken to the common pleas court of Franklin county.

The case coming on for trial in the lower court, a transcript of the testimony taken before the Industrial Commission was offered by the plaintiff. Thereupon the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict, which motion the court sustained.

Question: Did the trial judge commit prejudicial error in sustaining the motion for a directed verdict ? This court must determine this question upon the testimony contained in the transcript offered in the trial. The facts as deduced from the testimony are as follows: Plaintiff was in the employ of the city of Columbus. He was to commence work on the particular morning of the injury at 7 o’clock. He went from his home on a street car to within three blocks of where he was to work, arriving there at about 6:30 a. m., and in alighting from the street car, and while attempting to cross the street, he was struck by an automobile and injured. Under the record evidence, and under all of the circumstances and surroundings in the case, we can reach but one conclusion, and that is that the claimant’s injury was not sustained in the course of, and did not arise out of, his employment. Thus finding there was nothing to submit to the jury, because that such injury was sustained in the course of, or arose out of, his employment, must be proved or admitted before the claimant would have a right to compensation.

Finding no error in the record prejudicial to the *457 rights of plaintiff in error, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Shields and Young, JJ., concur. Houck and Shields, JJ., of the Fifth Appellate District, and Young, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting in place of Allread, Ferneding and Kunkle, JJ., of the Second Appellate District.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 N.E. 704, 24 Ohio App. 455, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 60, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenzie-v-industrial-commission-ohioctapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack