VSSR Cases: Grandfather Clause

(Supreme Court)

Click on the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court's web site. Decisions which adopt the decision of a lower court or Magistrate, or which decide a case based on a previous decision, are excluded.

Arce, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/2/05)

If machine is an installation or construction it is governed by the safety code in effect when it was put in service, rather than the safety code in effect at the time of injury; the Commission properly found that a machine was an installation or construction where it was of large size and weight, lacked mobility, and was set up for use in a specific location.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Colliver, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/17/99)

Grandfather clause provision of safety code applied only to installations or constructions. Therefore, the grandfather clause did not apply to a motor vehicle. However, Court found that evidence supported denial of VSSR claim even when the applicable code provision was applied because there was no evidence that removal of an emergency brake caused the accident and the Commission could determine that someone testing a vehicle was not an operator of the vehicle.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Justice Lundberg Stratton

McVay, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/22/99)

Grandfather clause provision of safety code applied only to installations or constructions. Therefore, the grandfather clause did not apply to a motor vehicle and the Commission was required to consider whether there was a safety code violation.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

VSSR Cases: Grandfather Clause

(Supreme Court)

Arce, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/2/05)

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Colliver, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/17/99)

Vote: 6-1Opinion by: Justice Lundberg Stratton

McVay, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/22/99)

Grandfather clause provision of safety code applied only to installations or constructions. Therefore, the grandfather clause did not apply to a motor vehicle and the Commission was required to consider whether there was a safety code violation.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Injured at Work?

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Justice Lundberg Stratton

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam