Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Ford v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 11, 1993No. 92-2259PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

From over fifty violations originally alleged, appellant now pursues just one — Ohio Adm.Code 4121:l-5-05(C)(2). It provides:

“All conveyors, where exposed to contact, shall be equipped with means to disengage them from their power supply at such points of contact.”

The commission found no violation, having deemed Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-05(C)(2) inapplicable. We agree, but for reasons distinct from those given by the appellate court.

Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-05(0(2) mandates a disengagement device at points “exposed to contact.” An object is “exposed to contact” when its location, “during the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Burton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. State ex rel. Berry v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Go-Jo Industries v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Ohio Paperboard v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
  3. State ex rel. Go-Jo Industries v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State ex rel. Ohio Paperboard v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API