Auberger v. Industrial Commission

*117 HAMILTON, J. It is argued that the claimant was entitled to participate in the state insurance fund, for the reason that the injury was received within the zone of the decedent’s employment. This proposition could only be considered from the standpoint of nearness to the zone of employment, since he was not on the premises of his employer. In considering this proposition it must be borne in mind that recovery under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is confined to compensation for injuries occurring' within the “scope of employment,” which phrase includes a limitation based upon period of employment. In the instant case the employee was not injured.during the period of employment. His work had not commenced- The factor of zone of employment is ineffectual to extend the employment period, since the employee was not upon the master’s premises. Had the injury occurred during the period of employment, had the employee commenced his work, the zone of employment outside the employer’s premises would have been a relevant matter. Otherwise, as in this case, it is not. It is suggested in the brief that the deceased employee was due to assume his employment at 6 o’clock A. M., and that the accident happened at 6:12 A. M. The accident therefore occurred a few minutes after he was due to begin work, but the fact that he was late in arriving at his work would make no difference. The following cases sustain our conclusion that thé judgment must be affirmed: Fassig v State ex rel Turner, 95 Oh St, 232. Conrad, Admx v Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co., 107 Oh St, 387. Slanina v Industrial Commission, 117 Oh St, 329. Industrial Commission v Ahern, 119, Oh St, 41. The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County is affirmed. ROSS, J, concurs.