Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Waugh v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 1997No. 95-198PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

We are asked to decide in this cause whether Waugh was injured in a “workshop,” within the meaning of Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 4121:1-5, such that LCETA may be liable for violating the specific safety requirement concerning protective footgear in Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-17(E). For the reasons that follow, we hold that a workshop, for the purpose of Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 4121:1-5, is a place located within some form of structural enclosure. Accordingly, we affirm.

*455Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-01(A) defines the scope of that chapter and provides, in part:

“The specific requirements of this code are…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Frank Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State ex rel. Double v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State ex rel. Buurma Farms, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State ex rel. Wiers Farms Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Cassens Corp. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2024
  2. State ex rel. Parks v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State ex rel. Avalotis Painting Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State ex rel. Cassens Corp. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022
  5. State ex rel. Waugh v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997

6 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