ILNews

Judges: injuries from crash on public road not covered

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the state worker’s compensation board that denied a security guard’s claim that a car accident on the way to work happened in the course of his employment and should be compensated.

Night security guard Earl Arnold in 2006 was driving from his home to his job at Rose Acre’s facility in Cortland. He was on County Road 800 North, which is a public road that intersects with a gravel road serving as the only entrance to Rose Acre’s facility. As Arnold started to make a left-hand turn onto the facility’s gravel road and crossed the center line, he was struck by a pick-up truck. The vehicles came to rest partially on the public road and partially in Rose Acre’s driveway. Arnold suffered several injuries.

He filed a claim for workers’ compensation on the grounds that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment, but a single member denied his claim and the full board supported that conclusion.

In Earl Arnold, Sr. v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc., No. 93A02-1109-EX-874, the judges could not determine that the full board erred in concluding that the public road wasn’t part of the Rose Acre’s premises for purposes of state statute. Although Rose Acre technically owned the soil beneath the public road, the judges found that it had no control of the road’s use a public thoroughfare. The court rejected Arnold’s argument that his left-hand turn into Rose Acre distinguished his use of the public road from the use made by the public at large.

The court also declined to apply a ruling it made more than a decade ago in Clemans v. Wishard Mem’l Hosp., 727 N.E.2d 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), which involved an employee traveling on a public road from one part of the employer’s premises to another part. That precedent does not stand for the proposition that an employee may be eligible for benefits from injuries occurring when traveling on a public road from the home to the employer’s sole piece of property, Judge Carr Darden wrote.

The court noted that Arnold failed to show the board erred in determining he wasn’t injured in the course of his employment with Rose Acre. Darden wrote in a footnote that the panel is making no determination as to whether Arnold’s injuries “arose out of” his employment.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT