State ex rel. Byington Builders, Ltd. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)
123 N.E.3d 908
| Ohio | 2018Background
- Employee Thomas Trousdale, an experienced roofer, fell 22 feet from a pitched apartment roof while installing caps and suffered serious injuries; he filed for workers’ compensation and later a VSSR claim.
- Trousdale applied for an additional award under Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-09(F)(1) (pitched-roof rule); employer Byington Builders conceded roof met the rule’s dimensions and that no catch platforms or harnesses attached to lifelines were being used.
- Testimony conflicted on whether lifelines/harnesses were physically available in an equipment trailer; supervisors admitted they did not require use and were themselves not using equipment.
- A staff hearing officer (SHO) found the pitched-roof rule applied, that Byington Builders violated it by failing to install catch platforms or provide lifelines securely fastened to the structure for use, and that the violation proximately caused Trousdale’s injuries; awarded a 40% additional VSSR benefit.
- Byington Builders sought mandamus relief in the Tenth District, arguing (1) the roof rule must be read with the general PPE rule (Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-03(J)(1)) so the employer only had to provide equipment, not fasten lifelines, and (2) Trousdale’s unilateral negligence in not using available equipment was the proximate cause.
- The Tenth District denied mandamus; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding the commission did not abuse its discretion in interpreting and applying the pitched-roof rule and rejecting the unilateral-negligence defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Byington) | Defendant's Argument (Trousdale/IC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-09(F)(1) required the employer to install/rig lifelines or only to make them available | 4123:1-3-09(F)(1) must be read with 4123:1-3-03(J)(1); employer only must provide/make available lifelines/harnesses | The roof-specific rule uses “used” (not “provided”) and mandates catch platforms unless safety belts/harnesses attached to a lifeline securely fastened to the structure are used | Court held the plain text and commission’s interpretation require either catch platforms or safety belts/harnesses attached to lifelines securely fastened to the structure (i.e., employer must install or rig lifelines if belts/harnesses are not actually used) |
| Whether the commission abused its discretion in finding a VSSR violation | Employer argued commission misinterpreted regulation and should have resolved doubt in employer’s favor | Commission and employee argued evidence supported that rule applied, employer did not satisfy its requirements, and violation caused the injury | Court found some evidence supported the commission’s findings and thus no abuse of discretion; VSSR award stands |
| Whether employer may avoid VSSR liability by asserting employee’s unilateral negligence for not using available equipment | Employer argued lifelines were available and employee’s failure to use them was unilateral negligence that breaks causal link | Employee and commission argued employer failed to comply with the specific safety rule and supervisors neither required nor used equipment, so negligence defense inapplicable | Court held unilateral-negligence defense unavailable because employer failed to comply with the specific safety requirement; even on facts of availability, failure to require/use by whole crew undercuts unilateral negligence claim |
| Proper standard of review for commission’s rule interpretation in VSSR context | Employer urged strict construction and interpretation in employer’s favor | Commission urged deference to its rule interpretation so long as not patently illogical | Court deferred to commission’s interpretation as reasonable and not patently illogical, while noting specific-safety rules must be strictly construed but finding the SHO’s reading supported by plain text |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Avalotis Painting Co. v. Indus. Comm., 91 Ohio St.3d 137, 742 N.E.2d 1124 (Ohio 2001) (construing employer/employee responsibilities under predecessor PPE rule; employer faulted for not rigging lifeline)
- State ex rel. Precision Steel Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 145 Ohio St.3d 76, 47 N.E.3d 109 (Ohio 2015) (elements for VSSR award and requirement that specific safety requirements be strictly construed)
- State ex rel. Armstrong Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 144 Ohio St.3d 243, 41 N.E.3d 1233 (Ohio 2015) (mandamus standard: commission’s VSSR decisions upheld if some evidence supports them)
- State ex rel. Frank Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 37 Ohio St.3d 162, 524 N.E.2d 482 (Ohio 1988) (unilateral-negligence defense applies only when employer complied with applicable safety requirement)
- State ex rel. Danstar Builders, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 108 Ohio St.3d 315, 843 N.E.2d 761 (Ohio 2006) (pitched-roof rule requires catch platforms unless safety belts and lifelines are used)
- State ex rel. Glunt Indus., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 132 Ohio St.3d 78, 969 N.E.2d 252 (Ohio 2012) (employer cannot assert unilateral-negligence defense when it failed to satisfy VSSR)
- State ex rel. R. Bauer & Sons Roofing & Siding, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 84 Ohio St.3d 62, 701 N.E.2d 995 (Ohio 1998) (construction of 4121:1-3-09 applying to roof work)