Legal Opinion

Hernandez v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1995No. 94-314PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

The issue before this court is whether appellant is negligent per se because appellant violated provisions of OSHA. “[W]here a legislative enactment imposes upon a person a specific duty for the protection of others, his failure to observe that duty constitutes negligence per se.” Taylor v. Webster (1967), 12 Ohio St.2d 53, 56, 41 O.O.2d 274, 275, 231 N.E.2d 870, 872.

In order to determine whether a violation of OSHA constitutes negligence per se, we must first determine whether OSHA was intended to affect the duties owed for the safety and protection of others. The preamble to OSHA reveals…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Swoboda v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Charles A. Ries, III v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, A/K/A Amtrak National Railroad Passenger CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
  3. Taylor v. WebsterOhio Supreme Court · 1967

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Chambers v. St. Mary's SchoolOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Berge v. Columbus Community Cable AccessOhio Court of Appeals · 1999
  3. Chambers v. St. Mary's SchoolOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Dukes v. Sirius Construction, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Vermett v. Fred Christen Sons CompanyOhio Court of Appeals · 2000

27 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