State ex rel. Morrissey v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
Decision Date | 24 July 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84-601,84-601 |
Citation | 18 Ohio St.3d 285,480 N.E.2d 810 |
Parties | , 18 O.B.R. 336 The STATE, ex rel. MORRISSEY, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Lang, Horenstein & Dunlevey, Bruce I. Nicholson and Stephen A. Watring, Dayton, for relator.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jeffery W. Clark, Columbus, for respondent Industrial Com'n.
Smith & Schnacke Co., L.P.A., Michael F. Krall, Steve C. Carr, Sherry J. Cato and Gary W. Auman, Dayton, for respondent Federal Flooring Co.
By this original action in mandamus, relator maintains the commission abused its discretion by failing to find a violation of the following safety requirements contained in Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-12:
Relator first contends the commission erred with regard to its interpretation of the instructional requirements placed upon employers pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-12(E)(1) through (7) set forth above. The record unequivocally demonstrates that Federal Flooring did not provide operational instructions relative to the explosive actuated fastening tools to relator or to other apprentices and journeymen. Instead, the employer contributed, pursuant to contract, seven cents for each hour worked by an apprentice or journeyman to the employees' union. 5 In return, the union agreed to train apprentices and journeymen in the application of their trade, as well as in instructional specific safety requirements. Based upon this contract, the commission denied relator's asserted breach of an instructional safety requirement, stating that "training was the responsibility of the union [not the employer]."
Relator submits that Federal Flooring cannot delegate its liability for failure to comply with a specific safety requirement to a third party, regardless of whether the delegation is accomplished pursuant to contract with a union in which the employee is a member. We agree. Pursuant to Section 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, the burden rests with "employer[s] to comply with any specific requirement for the protection of the lives, health or safety of employes, enacted by the General Assembly or in the form of an order adopted by such board * * *."
As was recognized in State, ex rel. Blystone, v. Indus. Comm. (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 238, 239, 470 N.E.2d 495:
Thus, while an employer is certainly at liberty to contract with third parties to insure compliance with specific safety requirements, the ultimate responsibility for the failure to comply with such a requirement remains with the employer when, as here, an employee seeks compensation for the failure to abide by the safety requirement.
The resolution of the instructional issue, however, in relator's favor does not, by itself, justify the issuance of the writ, for the commission further concluded that even if the requisite instruction had been provided it "would not have prevented or lessened the injury." Thus, a causational issue was presented which the commission ultimately resolved against relator.
The seminal case in which this court has considered the issue of causation and the violation of a specific safety requirement is State, ex rel. Haines, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 15, 278 N.E.2d 24 . Therein, it was stated at 17, 278 N.E.2d 24:
According to relator, the industrial injury occurred when the power fastener misfired while pressed against the concrete ceiling. It is relator's contention that after the misfire, he did not hold the power fastener in the operating position (pressed against the ceiling) since he was not made aware of this procedure. See Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-12(E)(5). Instead, relator claims he lowered the fastener before the expiration of thirty seconds, at which time the power tool fired and the pin ricocheted off the concrete ceiling striking him in the head. There were no witnesses to the injury.
Conversely, Federal Flooring contended before the commission that the power fastener was pressed against the ceiling when the tool was activated and that the ricochet occurred when the steel pin came into contact with a stone lodged in the concrete surface. This position was supported by the affidavit of Jack Neargarder, a vice president of Federal Flooring, as well as by an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Cotterman v. St. Marys Foundry
... 46 Ohio St.3d 42 ... 544 N.E.2d 887 ... The STATE, ex rel. COTTERMAN, ... An investigation was conducted by the appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio and on September 24, 1984, the commission mailed an ... In State, ex rel. Morrissey, v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 285, 287, 18 OBR 336, 338, 480 ... ...
-
State, ex rel. Superior's Brand Meats, Inc., v. Indus. Comm.
... Page 277 ... 63 Ohio St.3d 277 ... 586 N.E.2d 1077 ... The STATE, ex rel. SUPERIOR'S BRAND MEATS, INC., Appellant, ... INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al., Appellees ... No. 90-1569 ... Supreme ... ...
-
State ex rel. Cincinnati Drum Service, Inc. v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio, 89-553
... ... State ex rel. Morrissey v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 285, 289, 18 OBR 336, 339, 480 N.E.2d 810, 814. It is well-settled that if the commission's decision is ... ...
-
State ex rel. Ish v. Industrial Com'n
...19 Ohio St.3d 28 ... 482 N.E.2d 941, 19 O.B.R. 24 ... The STATE, et rel. ISH, ... INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of ... Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Gerald H. Waterman, Columbus, for respondent Indus. Comn ... [482 N.E.2d 943] Fuller & Henry and Richard S. Baker, Toledo, for respondent ... State, ex rel. Roberts, supra. See, also, State, ex rel. Morrissey, v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 285, 480 N.E.2d 810 ... Accordingly, the ... ...