State ex rel. Humble v. Mark Concepts, Inc.

Decision Date28 November 1979
Docket NumberNo. 78-1517,78-1517
Citation60 Ohio St.2d 77,397 N.E.2d 403
Parties, 14 O.O.3d 275 The STATE ex rel. HUMBLE, Appellee, v. MARK CONCEPTS, INC., et al., Appellants.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

The Industrial Commission's denial of an employee's application for an additional award for violation of a specific safety requirement constitutes an abuse of discretion where the uncontested evidence shows that an employer has violated a specific safety requirement resulting in injury to an employee. (State ex rel. Truckey v. Indus. Comm., 29 Ohio St.2d 132, 279 N.E.2d 875, approved and followed.)

Smith & Schnacke and Gary W. Auman, Columbus, for appellee.

Young, Pryor, Lynn, Falke & Jerardi and Gary W. Gottschlich, Dayton, for appellant Mark Concepts, Inc.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Solomon Hertzel Basch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants Administrator, Bureau of Workers' Compensation, and Industrial Commission.

GREY, Justice.

Appellee Humble was working on a mechanical power press when injured. This power press is a device consisting essentially, of a base and ram which goes up and down. Dies are attached to the base and the ram, and metal is inserted between the dies. In the operating cycle the ram comes down under great pressure and the metal is pressed between the two dies to be formed into the desired shape. Because of the danger to the operator, the Industrial Commission has promulgated rules requiring the use of safety devices to prevent an operator's hands from being caught between the dies during the operating cycle.

Regulation IC-5-08.03 provides:



"(1) Construction

"Every power press in use shall be constructed, or shall be guarded to prevent the hands or fingers of the operator from entering the danger zone during the operating cycle."

The various methods of guarding an operator's hand set forth in regulation IC-5-08.03(B) include a two-hand tripping device and a limitation of the ram stroke on automatic feed presses. The power press Humble operated was equipped with dual palm button controls, but one of the buttons had been taped down allowing the press to run by pressing only one button. The dog pin, used to prevent the fly wheel from recycling, had been removed. Thus the press was not equipped with the required safety devices.

Regulation IC-5-08.03(B) exempts the use of the specific safety devices, however, when the operator is setting up or trying out dies. The Industrial Commission found Humble was setting up and trying out the dies when injured, and therefore denied his application for the additional award.

Appellants contend that some evidence exists to prove Humble was trying out the dies; therefore, the decision denying the additional award was within the sound discretion of the commission.

The Court of Appeals decided the exception could not apply because Humble, although in the process of trying out the dies, had engaged the machine in an actual operating cycle. The Court of Appeals reasoned the exception could apply only to setting up and trying out activities which do not entail putting the press through its operating cycle, and stated further that:

"Any other interpretation of the exception would provide no protection for the operator's hands or fingers even though he would, in the 'trying out' process, be putting the machine through the very same operating cycles that he would if actually the press were in full production."

The law in Ohio is well settled. The determination of disputed factual issues and the interpretation of regulations is within the sound discretion of the Industrial Commission. State ex rel. Allied Wheel Products, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (1956), 166 Ohio St. 47, 50, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • State ex rel. Rouch v. Eagle Tool & Mach. Co., 85-1608
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • September 23, 1986
    ...429 N.E.2d 99 ; State, ex rel. Dodson, v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 408, 406 N.E.2d 99 ; State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 77, 397 N.E.2d 403 .2 Teece similarly modified the holding in State, ex rel. Wallace, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 57 Ohio St.2d 5......
  • State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1981
    ...This court enunciated the "some evidence" rule in Dodson, supra, citing three earlier cases, State ex rel. Humble v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 77, 397 N.E.2d 403; State ex rel. Capital City Excavating Co. v. Indus. Comm., supra; and State ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Indu......
  • State ex rel. Cotterman v. St. Marys Foundry
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • October 11, 1989
    ...Commission, to support its factual findings. Therefore, those findings must not be disturbed. State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 77, 14 O.O.3d 275, 397 N.E.2d 403. Such a conclusion should appear obvious in light of the facts before The parties stipulated th......
  • State ex rel. Jeffrey v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • August 13, 1986
    ...G F Business Equip., Inc., v. Indus. Comm. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 446, 447, 423 N.E.2d 99 , citing State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 77, 397 N.E.2d 403 ; State, ex rel. Davis, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 160, 398 N.E.2d 779 ; State, ex rel. Republi......
  • 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