State ex rel. Byington Builders, Ltd. v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 2623
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Employee Thomas Trousdale fell ~22–25 feet from a pitched roof on Sept. 2, 2011, sustaining an allowed workers' compensation claim; he was not wearing fall protection at the time.
- Byington (employer) acknowledged no catch platform or installed lifeline at the fall site but asserted that harnesses, lanyards, roof jacks, and other fall protection were present at the jobsite trailer and available to workers.
- Trousdale filed an application for a VSSR award alleging violations of Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-09(E) (roofing brackets) and 4123:1-3-09(F)(1) (catch platforms / lifelines).
- A commission staff hearing officer (SHO) found no violation as to roofing brackets (E) but found a VSSR violation of 4123:1-3-09(F)(1): employer failed to install a catch platform or to securely fasten a lifeline to the structure; the violation was the proximate cause of the fall and a 40% penalty was imposed.
- Byington sought rehearing (denied) and then filed this mandamus action arguing the commission abused its discretion; the court of appeals adopted the magistrate's decision and denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OAC 4123:1-3-09(F)(1) required employer to securely fasten a lifeline to the structure (vs. worker responsibility) | Byington: safety equipment was available on site; employee had or could use it; employer not required to rig lifeline for each worker | Commission / Trousdale: rule requires either a catch platform or a lifeline "securely fastened to the structure" — employer must install or fasten it so workers can tie off | Court: Commission did not abuse discretion; employer obligation to install/fasten lifeline applies; VSSR upheld |
| Whether roofing-bracket rule 4123:1-3-09(E)(1) is sufficiently specific to support a VSSR | Byington: argued brackets need not have been required for this roof | Commission: SHO found the bracket rule lacked specificity for this pitch and therefore no violation | Court: SHO correctly denied VSSR for E due to lack of specificity |
| Whether unilateral negligence by employee bars VSSR liability | Byington: employee failed to use available equipment; unilateral negligence defense applies | Commission: no lifeline fixed in place at the immediate work area; employer failed to satisfy the requirement initially | Court: Unilateral negligence defense inapplicable because employer never initially satisfied the specific safety requirement |
| Whether violation was proximate cause of the injury | Byington: availability of equipment elsewhere breaks proximate cause; employee’s conduct was intervening | Commission: lack of a lifeline at the worksite meant no means to tie off — failure proximately caused the fall | Court: SHO reasonably found the violation proximately caused the injury; mandamus denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Avalotis Painting Co. v. Indus. Comm., 91 Ohio St.3d 137 (2001) (employer may be required to have lifeline rigged where employee is instructed to work; lifeline unavailable at work area is equivalent to not having it)
- State ex rel. Holdosh v. Indus. Comm., 149 Ohio St. 179 (1948) (specific safety requirements must plainly apprise employers of obligations)
- State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm., 46 Ohio St.3d 170 (1989) (VSSR provisions strictly construed in favor of employer because they impose penalties)
- State ex rel. Devore Roofing & Painting v. Indus. Comm., 101 Ohio St.3d 66 (2004) (court defers to commission’s reasonable interpretations of its rules unless application yields patently illogical result)
- State ex rel. Frank Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 37 Ohio St.3d 162 (1988) (unilateral negligence defense applies only when employer initially satisfied the safety requirement and employee disabled/circumvented it)