Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hirschvogel, Inc. v. Miller

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 1999No. 97-1630PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

The commission’s order contains an accurate recitation of the two specific safety requirements currently at issue — Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-12(D)(3)(a)(i) and (4)(a). Hirschvogel does not dispute noncompliance with these specific safety requirements. The Cratex 203-A grinding wheel was not attached to the wheel armature with flanges, and the wheel’s maximum rated speed was greatly exceeded by the minimum speed of the grinder.

Hirschvogel instead attempts to excuse its noncompliance by asserting that the provisions do not apply. Alternatively, it alleges that claimant acted negligently, thereby…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Frank Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Quality Tower Service, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State ex rel. Quality Tower Serv., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State ex rel. Sunesis Constr. Co. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2015
  4. State ex rel. Amanda Bent Bolt Co. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2015
  5. State ex rel. Armstrong Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014

3 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