Ohio Supreme Court, 1994

State ex rel. Buurma Farms, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided April 27, 1994 · No. 93-799 · Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

69 Ohio St. 3d 111; 630 N.E.2d 686

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (5-23-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State ex rel. Parks v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1999)
State Ex Rel. Haire v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State ex rel. Waugh v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Cassens Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
City of Bellaire v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (7-9-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
City of Bellaire v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (6-27-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State Ex Rel. Petrie v. Atlas Iron Proc., Unpublished Decision (4-28-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Petrie v. Atlas Iron Processors, Inc. (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Petrie v. Atlas Iron Processors, Inc. (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Wiers Farms Co. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Buurma Farms, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Wiers Farms Co. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1994)

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.

Ohio Adm.Code 4121:l-5-01(A) states in part:

“ * * * The specific requirements of this code are requirements upon an employer for the protection of such employer’s employees and no others and apply to all workshops and factories subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act * * * »

In alleging specific safety requirement inapplicability, appellant asserts that a farm is neither a workshop nor a factory. Appellant, however, misinterprets the commission’s decision. The commission, contrary to appellant’s representation, did not broadly rule that appellant’s farm was a “workshop.” It found that the farm contained a particular building that was a “workshop.” Limiting our review to this narrower finding, we discern no abuse of discretion.

“Workshop” has not been defined statutorily, administratively or judicially by this court. As such, it must “be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” R.C. 1.42 and 1.41. Black’s Law Dictionary (4 Ed.Rev. 1968) 1781, defines “workshop”:

“Within Workmen’s Compensation Acts, a room or place wherein power-driven machinery is employed and manual labor is exercised by way of trade for gain or otherwise.”

Appellant does not dispute that claimant worked in a room where power-driven machinery was used and manual labor was “exercised by way of trade for gain * * *.” The commission, therefore, properly found that claimant was injured in a workshop.

The appellate court judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.