State ex rel. Blystone v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio

• Decision Date: 28 June 1984
• Citation: 14 Ohio App.3d 238,470 N.E.2d 495
• Parties: , 14 O.B.R. 266 The STATE, Ex Rel. BLYSTONE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 238

14 Ohio App.3d 238

470 N.E.2d 495, 14 O.B.R. 266

The STATE, Ex Rel. BLYSTONE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

June 28, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

An employer is not relieved of responsibility for violation of a specific safety requirement when the employer removes a safety device at the request of the employee who is subsequently injured due to the lack of the safety device.

Bentoff & Duber Co., L.P.A., and Michael J. Duber, Cleveland, for relator John L. Blystone.

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., Lee M. Smith, Columbus, and Richard L. Friedman, Cleveland, for respondents Indus. Com'n and James Mayfield, Adm'r.

W. Michael Shay, Columbus, for respondent Paratore Interior Systems, Inc.

McCORMAC, Presiding Judge.

Relator, John Blystone, has commenced a mandamus action in this court alleging that the respondent Industrial Commission abused its discretion in denying his application for violation of a specific safety requirement.

Respondents, Industrial Commission, Administrator James Mayfield and Paratore Interior Systems, Inc., have answered denying any abuse of discretion.

The evidence is the Industrial Commission claim file of relator.

Relator was injured during the course of his employment when he fell from a scaffolding on which he was working from a distance of eighteen to twenty feet off the ground. Prior to his fall, the scaffolding guardrail was removed by his employer at the request of relator.

Ohio Adm. Code 4121:1-3-07(F) (now 4121:1-3-10[C] ) contained a specific safety requirement that a guardrail be provided on the unprotected side of the scaffolding from which relator fell. The application for violation of a specific safety requirement was denied because the guardrail, which the employer had installed to comply with the specific safety requirement, had been removed at relator's request prior to his fall so that he could more easily perform his sanding duties.

The issue is whether an employer is relieved from responsibility for violation of a specific safety requirement when the employer has removed a safety device at the request of the employee who was injured.

It is the employer who has the obligation to comply with specific safety requirements adopted for the protection of employees. Although the employer initially complied with the requirement for installing a guardrail, the employer was no longer in compliance when the guardrail was...