George v. City of Youngstown
| Decision Date | 29 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | 28694. |
| Citation | 139 Ohio St. 591,41 N.E.2d 567 |
| Parties | GEORGE v. CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A municipal corporation is subject to the specific requirements of Section 1027 General Code, for the protection of the lives, health and safety of its own employees and also of invitees employed by its contractor. (State ex rel. Post v. Industrial Commission, 127 Ohio St. 187, 187 N.E 719, approved and followed.)
2. The removal of a gear guard for the purpose of repair constitutes a violation of such specific requirements when the dangerous machinery is permitted to remain in use while thus exposed.
3. A workman who has been injured by the negligence of a third person may nevertheless maintain an action to recover damages from such third person even though the workman's employer has complied with the provisions of the compensation law. (Trumbull Cliffs Furnace Co. v. Shachovsky, 111 Ohio St. 791, 146 N.E. 306, approved and followed.)
Appeal from Court of Appeals, Mahoning County.
The plaintiff, William George, instituted this action in the Court of Common Pleas to recover damages for personal injuries suffered August 1, 1938, while he was using an unguarded electric drill press in a blacksmith shop owned and maintained by the defendant, the city of Youngstown.
The plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant city but of the Works Progress Administration, an agency of the federal government. This agency and the city had entered into a contract whereby the former agreed to construct certain sewers in and for the city. One of the terms of the contract provided that the city should permit the federal agency to use certain equipment and shops owned and maintained by the city. It was in one of these shops that the plaintiff was working at the time he was injured. His occupation is that of a blacksmith, and his foreman instructed him to go to the shop and use the electric press to drill holes in two pieces of steel which were to be assembled in the form of a tool with which to move and tamp concrete. While the plaintiff was engaged in drilling the holes his left hand came into contract with the unguarded gears of the press, and part of one finger was severed.
The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.
Upon the defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeals on questions of law the judgment was affirmed.
The case is in this court for review by reason of the allowance of the defendant's motion to certify the record.
John A Willo, Director of Law, Homer E. Carlyle, and I. Freeman, all of Youngstown, for appellant.
L. M. Cailor, of Youngstown, for appellee.
The plaintiff predicates his claim upon the negligence of the defendant city in failing to comply with the specific requirement of Section 1027, General Code, which reads in part as follows:
'The owners and operators of shops and factories shall make suitable provisions to prevent injury to persons who use or come in contact with machinery therein or any part thereof as follows: * * *
In the case of State ex rel. Post v. Industrial Commission, 127 Ohio St. 187, 187 N.E. 719, this court held that municipal corporations are subject to the specific requirements of the foregoing section for the protection of the lives, health and safety of their employees. However, the defendant municipality seems to discount the value of this precedent by observing that under the conceded facts in the instant case the plaintiff was not employed by it but by the federal agency; and it is insisted that the plaintiff was a mere licensee. It is true that the plaintiff was not an employee of the municipality, but a study of the record discloses no evidence to indicate that he was less than an invitee. On the contrary, under the contract between the city and the federal agency the latter's employees were not only permitted to use the former's...
To continue reading
Request your trial