Standard Oil Co. v. Clark

Ohio Court of Appeals

Standard Oil Co. v. Clark

184 N.E. 861, 44 Ohio App. 211, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 355, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 289

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 1932

DocketNo 292

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 184 N.E. 861 (Standard Oil Co. v. Clark) 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

Standard Oil Co. v. Clark, 184 N.E. 861, 44 Ohio App. 211, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 355, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 289 (Ohio Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDS, J.

On the trial of the case each party, at the conclusion of the evidence, moved the court for a directed verdict. The court overruled each motion and neither party desiring to withdraw its motion, the court without objection proceeded to determine the case upon its merits and found that the plaintiff was entitled to participate in the workmen’s compensation fund. This court is satisfied that such finding and judgment rendered thereon were required by the facts. The injuries plainly arose out of the decedent’s employment and occurred in the course of his employment. The employment contract made it a part of his duty to take the day’s receipts home with him and care for those proceeds for his employer. When killed, he was in the performance of a duty enjoined upon him by his employment. His care for the funds *357 while enroute from the filling station to his home was as much a part of his duty as his work at the filling station. The case is directly within the principle decided by the Supreme Court on June 8, 1932 in English v Industrial Commission, 125 Oh St, 494, in which a school teacher who was returning from his school to his home, carrying examination papers, was killed enroute, it being part of his duty to grade the examination papers at his home.

For the reasons given the judgment will be affirmed.

LLOYD, J, concurs. WILLIAMS, J, not participating.

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

RICHARDS, J.

On the trial of the case each party, at the conclusion of the evidence, moved the court for a directed verdict. The court overruled each motion and neither party desiring to withdraw its motion, the court without objection proceeded to determine the case upon its merits and found that the plaintiff was entitled to participate in the workmen’s compensation fund. This court is satisfied that such finding and judgment rendered thereon were required by the facts. The injuries plainly arose out of the decedent’s employment and occurred in the course of his employment. The employment contract made it a part of his duty to take the day’s receipts home with him and care for those proceeds for his employer. When killed, he was in the performance of a duty enjoined upon him by his employment. His care for the funds *357 while enroute from the filling station to his home was as much a part of his duty as his work at the filling station. The case is directly within the principle decided by the Supreme Court on June 8, 1932 in English v Industrial Commission, 125 Oh St, 494, in which a school teacher who was returning from his school to his home, carrying examination papers, was killed enroute, it being part of his duty to grade the examination papers at his home.

For the reasons given the judgment will be affirmed.

LLOYD, J, concurs. WILLIAMS, J, not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.E. 861, 44 Ohio App. 211, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 355, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-oil-co-v-clark-ohioctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack