Standard Oil Co. v. Clark
The Standard Oil Co. v. Clark.
Opinion of the Court
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.