Ohio Supreme Court, 1972

State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided January 26, 1972 · Blown, Corrigan, Herbert, Leach, Neill, Schneider, Stern

29 Ohio St. 2d 15; 278 N.E.2d 24; 58 Ohio Op. 2d 70; 1972 Ohio LEXIS 515

Cases that cite this one

74 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State Ex Rel. Supreme Bumpers, Inc. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 2002)
State Ex Rel. Quality Stamping Products v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (Ohio 1998)
State Ex Rel. Scott v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 2013)
State ex rel. S&Z Tool & Die Co. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. A-F Industries v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1986)
State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1981)
Lockheed Martin v. Channell, Unpublished Decision (1-19-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State Ex Rel. Adv. Metal v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (7-26-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State ex rel. Quality Stamping Products v. Ohio Bur. of WorkersÆ Comp. (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Haddix v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Haddix v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Superior's Brand Meats, Inc. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1992)
State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1992)
State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1992)
State Ex Rel. LTV Steel Corp. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
State Ex Rel. Moore v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1985)
State ex rel. Camaco, L.L.C. v. Albu (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2017)
Super Valu v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (6-15-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State ex rel. White Consolidated Industries v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1990)
State ex rel. Bayless v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1990)
State ex rel. Ellis v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1990)
State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1989)
State ex rel. Burton v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1989)
State ex rel. Spangler Candy Co. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1988)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

This court has held on many occasions that the determination of disputed factual situations is within the final jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, and subject to correction by action in mandamus only upon a showing of abuse of discretion. Slatmeyer v. Indus. Comm. (1926), 115 Ohio St. 654; State, ex rel. Coen, v. Indus. Comm. (1933), 126 Ohio St. 550; State, ex rel. Moore, v. Indus. Comm. (1935), 129 Ohio St. 195; State, ex rel. Berry, v. Indus. Comm. (1935), 129 Ohio St. 228; State, ex rel. Wilms, v. Blake (1945), 144 Ohio St. 619; State, ex rel. Howard Eng. & Mfg. Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1947), 148 Ohio St. 165; State v. Ohio Stove Co. (1950), 154 Ohio St. 27; State, ex rel. Reed, v. Indus. Comm. (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 200.

Assuming that the excavation in question was a “floor *17opening” requiring guard railings or safety covers within the intendment of Bulletin No. 203, and that a violation of a specific requirement by the employer was thus established (an assumption apparently followed by the Court of Appeals), the explicit language of Section 35, Article II of the Constitution of Ohio, requires not only that there be a “failure of the employer to comply with any specific requirement for the lives, health and safety of employes * * * in the form of an order adopted by such board [Industrial Commission],” but also that the injury, disease or death “resulted because of such failure by the employer.”

As a matter of constitutional interpretation, we reject the assertion of appellant that:

“Where a specific safety requirement has been violated and an accidental injury occurs under circumstances which permit a reasonable inference that compliance with the requirement could probably have avoided the injury (although the same facts might also permit the inference that the injury could have occurred despite compliance), an additional award is mandatory.”

The question of whether an injury, disease or death “resulted because of such failure by the employer” is a question of fact to be decided by the Industrial Commission, subject only to the “abuse of discretion” test.

As did the Court of Appeals, we conclude that the decision of the Industrial Commission that decedent’s death “was not caused by” any violation of a specific safety requirement did not constitute an abuse of discretion on the part of the commission.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern and Leach, JJ., concur. Schneider, J., dissents. Blown, J., not participating,.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.