VSSR Cases: Negligence by Employee

(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.

Coffman, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/31/06)

Unilateral negligence does not bar VSSR award where employer did not initially comply with requirements of safety code.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Danstar Builders, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/22/06)

Employer is required to comply with safety requirements; where employer does not initially comply with safety requirements, employee negligence is not defense to VSSR award.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Glunt Industries, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/16/12)

Employer cannot claim employee's unilateral negligence bars VSSR award when the employer failed to comply with safety requirement.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hirschvogel, Inc., State ex rel. v. Miller (8/25/99)

Commission did not abuse discretion by granting VSSR award where injury was caused by rubberized grinding wheel. Rubberized wheel is covered by code provision relating to abrasive grinding equipment. Claimant's claimed negligence irrelevent because negligence is a defense to a VSSR claim only where employer has complied with safety code requirement.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Pressware Internatl., Inc., State ex rel.v. Indus. Comm. (4/7/99)

Alleged negligence by claimant did not bar VSSR award, because employer had failed to initially comply with safety requirement. On another safety violation alleged, malfunction was a first-time failure which shielded employer from VSSR liability.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Quality Tower Service, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/15/00)

VSSR denied because employer complied with safety code and employee unilaterally violated the safety code.

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Per Curiam

VSSR Cases: Negligence by Employee

(Supreme Court)

Coffman, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/31/06)

Unilateral negligence does not bar VSSR award where employer did not initially comply with requirements of safety code.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Danstar Builders, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/22/06)

Employer is required to comply with safety requirements; where employer does not initially comply with safety requirements, employee negligence is not defense to VSSR award.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Glunt Industries, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/16/12)

Employer cannot claim employee's unilateral negligence bars VSSR award when the employer failed to comply with safety requirement.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hirschvogel, Inc., State ex rel. v. Miller (8/25/99)

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Pressware Internatl., Inc., State ex rel.v. Indus. Comm. (4/7/99)

Alleged negligence by claimant did not bar VSSR award, because employer had failed to initially comply with safety requirement. On another safety violation alleged, malfunction was a first-time failure which shielded employer from VSSR liability.

Vote: 5-2Opinion by: Per Curiam

Quality Tower Service, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/15/00)

VSSR denied because employer complied with safety code and employee unilaterally violated the safety code.

Vote: 4-3Opinion by: Per Curiam

Injured at Work?

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Per Curiam