State ex rel. Miller Plumbing Co. v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 19 May 1948
• Docket Number: 31204.
• Citation: 79 N.E.2d 553,149 Ohio St. 493
• Parties: STATE ex rel. MILLER PLUMBING CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

79 N.E.2d 553

149 Ohio St. 493

STATE ex rel. MILLER PLUMBING CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.

No. 31204.

Supreme Court of Ohio

May 19, 1948

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a specific safety requirement adopted by the Industrial Commission is expressly made applicable to employers in a specific industry or occupation, such requirement is not applicable to employers in another separate and distinct class of employments or occupations, unless expressly made so by a rule or order of the commission.

This is an action in mandamus. The relator in its amended petition alleges that on March 13, 1943, it was engaged under contract with The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company to construct and install boilers and accessories in the factory building formerly used by the Beach Enameling Company of Coshocton Ohio; and that on that date one of relator's employees Charles A. Brode, while attempting to descend from some overhead pipelines by means of a ladder, struck the top of the ladder and fell to a concrete floor, suffering multiple bone fractures.

Relator alleges further that during all the time of such construction work it was a contributor to the state insurance fund and was engaged solely in building and construction work and not in operating or maintaining a workshop or factory; that Brode made application for benefits from the state insurance fund which benefits were granted by the respondent commission that on October 27, 1944, Brode filed with the respondent an application for an additional award for a violation of a specific safety requirement, under Section 35, Article II of the Constitution, claiming that relator was guilty of violating Section 17 of Bulletin 203 of Specific Safety Requirements, relating to workshops and factories, adopted by the respondent Industrial Commission, December 26, 1923; that such application was heard and allowed by the respondent commission and a finding made by it to the effect that Brode's injuries were caused by the violation of a specific safety requirement relating to workshops and factories, in that the ladder used by Brode when he received his injuries was not equipped with safety shoes, metal spikes or spurs, as required by paragraph (a), Section 17, Bulletin 203; and that respondent allowed Brode additional benefits in an amount equal to 20 per cent of the regular compensation previously granted him and ordered the collection of such additional award.

Relator alleges further that Brode died on January 20, 1947, whereupon an application was filed with the respondent commission by his dependents for death benefits from the state insurance fund; that such application was referred to the Canton District Board of Claims for its finding as to such death benefits; that from a finding adverse to relator, 'an application for reconsideration and review of said former finding of a violation of Section 17 of Bulletin 203, the ordering of an additional award and its collection, and of said finding of said Canton Board of Claims' was considered by the respondent commission; and that the respondent commission, under date of August 18, 1947, notified the relator that the order of the Canton District Board of Claims was affirmed and relator's application for reconsideration denied, and ordered as payment for such death award the sum of $3,318, from January 27, 1947, to December 26, 1949, and for the violation of such specific requirement the sum of $1,500, which sum is composed of the sum of $836.40, for violation of the specific requirement, to January 12, 1947, and a death award, for violation of a specific requirement, from January 27, 1947, to December 26, 1949, in the sum of $663.60.

The relator alleges further that the findings and awards of the respondent commission were unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable and a gross abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent commission; that there was no violation of any specific lawful requirement within the purview of Section 35, Article II of...