 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Quality Tower Service3/15/2000
Cite as State ex rel. Quality Tower Serv., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (2000),
Workers' compensation - Alleged violation of specific safety requirement concerning suspension straps - Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3- 08(G) - Writ of mandamus vacating Industrial Commission's award of violation of a specific safety requirement granted, when.
Submitted January 11, 2000
Quality Tower Service, Inc. ("QTS"), appellant, sought a writ of mandamus requiring appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order granting an award of additional workers' compensation to appellees Theresa Garaux, widow of John D. Garaux, and Richard D. Reed for QTS's violation of a specific safety requirement ("VSSR"). The Court of Appeals for Franklin County denied the writ, finding that the commission did not abuse its discretion in granting the VSSR award. QTS appeals as of right.
Decedent Garaux was killed and Reed was severely injured while dismantling a two-to-three-hundred-foot communications tower for QTS. They were belted to a "gin pole," an antenna-like structure used to support tower technicians during the dismantling process, when the synthetic straps suspending the structure failed and caused the gin pole, Garaux, and Reed to fall thirty or forty feet to the ground. The straps failed because, contrary to the direct order of QTS president and general manager Mark A. Pyron, Garaux rigged the gin pole with "ultralight straps" rather than the stronger straps that Pyron had provided for this purpose.
After their workers' compensation claims were allowed, Reed and Garaux's widow alleged that QTS had violated, among other safety regulations, Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-08(G). Reed claimed a violation of division (G)(2), which prohibits employers from exceeding the rated capacity of synthetic webbing. Garaux's widow claimed a violation of division (G)(2) and also of division (G)(1)(b), which requires certain employers to label synthetic web slings with the " ated capabilities for the type of hitch."
QTS conceded that inadequate suspension straps had caused Reed's injury and Garaux's death and that the straps were not properly labeled. But QTS also established that Garaux had used his own ultralight straps to rig the gin pole, that Pyron had expressly directed him to use the company's stronger straps and not the ultralight straps, and that QTS's straps were properly labeled. Thus, QTS argued that Garaux was unilaterally negligent, that his conduct had caused the accident and, therefore, that QTS had neither committed a VSSR nor caused the claimants' injuries.
The commission found that QTS had violated Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-08(G)(2) with respect to Reed because inadequate suspension straps had been used to rig the gin pole from which he fell. With respect to Garaux, the commission found a violation of Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-08(G)(2) and (G)(1)(b) and that he was not unilaterally negligent. The commission reasoned that these provisions did not distinguish between whether equipment belonged to the company or an employee. Moreover, the commission inferred that if Garaux's ultralight straps had been properly labeled, he likely would not have used them, opting instead for the heavier-duty rigging provided by QTS.
The court of appeals agreed with the commission, finding that QTS's failure to label Garaux's ultralight straps violated Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-08(G)(1)(b) and (2) and caused the death and injuries at issue.
The dispositive issue in this case is: Did QTS comply with Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-08(G) so that it is not responsible for the alleged VSSRs? For the following reasons, we hold that QTS did comply with this specific safety regulat
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|