State ex rel. Go-Jo Industries v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The two specific safety requirements before us are power-disengagement requirements. Go-Jo concedes that there was no power-disengagement device at the location where claimant was injured. At issue is the applicability of those provisions and the evidentiary support underlying the commission’s determination that they were violated. For the reasons to follow, we find that the commission did not abuse its discretion in assessing these penalties.
Ohio Adm.Code 4121:l-5-05(C)(2)
This section provides:
“All conveyors, where exposed to contact, shall be equipped with means to disengage them from their…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State ex rel. Berry v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- State ex rel. Harris v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State ex rel. Draganic v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- State ex rel. Brewer v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State ex rel. Scott Fetzer Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
- State ex rel. Pressware International v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- State ex rel. Go-Jo Industries v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Jackson Tube Serv., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
- State ex rel. Pressware Internatl., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.