Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Scott Fetzer Co. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 1998No. 95-1545PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-11(D)(6) demands that danger zones on die cast machines be guarded. Former Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-01(B)(17) defines “guarded” as “covered, fenced, railed, enclosed, or otherwise shielded from accidental contact.” Fetzer presents three arguments that alternately assert compliance and inapplicability. Upon review, we find none of them persuasive and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Fetzer cites the language “otherwise shielded from accidental contact” and claims that the robotic equipment performed that function by eliminating the need for claimant to be in the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Aspinwall v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Go-Jo Industries v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Go-Jo Industries v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. U.S. Tubular Prods., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2021
  4. State ex rel. Strawser v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023
  5. State ex rel. US Tubular Prods., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API