State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial Commission

Decision Date26 January 1972
Docket NumberNo. 71-476,71-476
Citation29 Ohio St.2d 15,278 N.E.2d 24
Parties, 58 O.O.2d 70 The STATE ex rel. HAINES, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Ohio, Appellee.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Decedent, David H. Haines, was employed by the Stone Container Corporation. On October 14, 1965, while the plant was shut down for major repairs, decedent was assigned to clean the chipper building of wood chips and sawdust. After cleaning the building, he operated a bulldozer in the plant yard performing certain housekeeping functions. Several weeks prior to that time, the surface of the yard had been excavated for the purpose of installing drainage. This excavation measured approximately 60 long by 12 wide by 6 deep. In operating the bulldozer decedent came too near the edge of the existing drainage ditch, upsetting the bulldozer, which fell on him as it turned over in the ditch.

A claim for death benefits was allowed and paid. Relatrix then filed her application for an additional award. This application was predicated upon the claim that the employer had violated Section 100 of Bulletin No. 203, Specific Safety Requirements of the Industrial Commission of Ohio for Workshops and Factories (now No. 1C-5-02.03), requiring 'floor openings,' at least where 'permanent' to be 'guarded with standard guard railings or fixed safety covers with flush hinges,' and defining floor openings as meaning 'an opening in any floor, platform, pavement or yard (12) inches or more in its least dimensions.'

In denying the writ of mandamus, the Court of Appeals held that the Industrial Commission had not abused its discretion in finding that decedent's death was not caused by the employer's violation of any specific safety requirement. An appeal as of right was then filed in this court.

Larrimer & Larrimer and Craig Aalyson, Columbus, for appellant.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and David J. Sherriff, Cleveland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This court has held on many occasions that the determination of disputed factual situations is within the final jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, and subject to correction by action in mandamus only upon a showing of abuse of discretion. Slatmeyer v. Indus. Comm. (1926), 115 Ohio St. 654, 155 N.E. 484; State, ex rel. Coen, v. Indus. Comm. (1933), 126 Ohio St. 550, 186 N.E. 398; State ex rel. Moore v. Indus. Comm. (1935), 129 Ohio St. 195, 194 N.E. 370; State, ex rel. Berry, v. Indus. Comm. (1935), 129 Ohio St. 228, 194 N.E. 414; State ex rel. Wilms, v. Blake (1945), 144 Ohio St. 619, 60 N.E.2d 308; State ex rel. Howard Eng. & Mfg. Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1947), 148 Ohio St. 165, 74 N.E.2d 201; State v. Ohio Stove Co. (1950), 154 Ohio St. 27, 93 N.E.2d 291; State ex rel. Reed, v. Indus.Comm. (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 200, 207 N.E.2d 755.

Assuming that the excavation in question was a 'floor opening' requiring guard railings or safety covers within the intendment of Bulletin No. 203, and that a violation of a specific requirement by the employer was thus established (an assumption apparently followed by the Court of Appeals), the explicit language of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
97 cases
  • State ex rel. Rouch v. Eagle Tool & Mach. Co., 85-1608
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • September 23, 1986
    ...e.g., State, ex rel. Coen, v. Indus. Comm., supra; State, ex rel. Allied Wheel Products, Inc., v. Indus. Comm., supra; State, ex rel. Haines, v. Indus. Comm., supra; State, ex rel. Mees, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 128, 279 N.E.2d 861 ; State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., v. Indu......
  • State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1981
    ...778. Mandamus is available only upon a showing of abuse of discretion by the Industrial Commission. State ex rel. Haines v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 15, 16 (278 N.E.2d 24). Where the uncontested evidence shows a violation of a specific safety requirement, the Industrial Commission......
  • State ex rel. Camaco, L.L.C. v. Albu
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • September 14, 2017
    ...State ex rel. Scott v. Indus. Comm., 136 Ohio St.3d 92, 2013-Ohio-2445, 990 N.E.2d 598, ¶ 12, citing State ex rel. Haines v. Indus. Comm., 29 Ohio St.2d 15, 278 N.E.2d 24 (1972).Conclusion{¶ 30} Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and issue a limited writ of mandamus ......
  • State ex rel. Jeffrey v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • August 13, 1986
    ...factual matters is subject to reversal by mandamus action only upon a showing of abuse of discretion. State, ex rel. Haines, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 15, 16, 278 N.E.2d 24 . Nothing in the commission's order allowing the twenty-five percent disability even approaches an abuse o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT