Opinion
No. 75-990
Decided March 24, 1976.
Workmen's compensation — Alleged violation of specific safety requirement — Allowance of additional award — Abuse of discretion, when — Machine improperly adjusted — Mandamus — Writ available, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
Relator manufactures wood pallets, containers and packing boxes at its plant in Springfield. A wood working machine, called a Dado saw, is used in the making of pallets. A Dado saw has two circular cutting heads mounted onto a horizontal drive shaft. The heads are spaced 28 inches apart and, with the shaft, are suspended above a stationary cutting table. The cutting heads are powered by a 15 horsepower electric motor, and the shaft and heads are raised and lowered by the tripping of a foot pedal activating a hydraulic pump which lowers the cutting heads simultaneously, enabling two notches to be cut in wood placed on the cutting table. The cutting heads are raised automatically after the notches are cut through the wood. Each cutting head is guarded by a metal hood which is adjustable to various heights over the cutting head and remains in a fixed position on the cutting head during the notching process.
William R. Boyd was employed by relator as a machine operator. While notching wood 2-1/2 inches thick with a Dado saw, Boyd was severely injured when his right hand struck the cutting head of the saw. At the time of the injury, the bottom edge of the guard was six to seven inches above the cutting table, exposing the front of the cutting head.
The Dado saw is designed so that the guard can be adjusted down to within three inches of the cutting table, which, had it been properly adjusted, would have allowed only a 1/2 inch exposure between the guard and the wood being notched by Boyd.
As a result of his injury, Boyd's claim for compensation was allowed by the Industrial Commission.
Claimant's subsequent application for an additional award for violation of specific safety requirements was allowed by the Industrial Commission which found that "Claimant's injury was caused by the lack of an effective guard to protect the claimant from injury as required by Bulletin IC-5, Section IC-5-07.12, the Code of Specific Safety Requirements."
IC-5-07, as applicable, is as follows:
"Woodworking Machinery
"IC-5-07.12 Miscellaneous Machines
"* * *
"(B) Routers
"(1) Guarding
"The pulleys, spindles and cutting tools shall be guarded. * * *."
Relator than instituted the instant mandamus action in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County to require respondent Industrial Commission to vacate its order allowing claimant an additional award for violation of a specific safety requirement. With one judge dissenting, the Court of Appeals denied the writ.
Relator appeals to this court as of right.
Messrs. Martin, Browne, Hull Harper and Mr. Hugh Barnett, for appellant.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, Mr. Michael J. Hickey and Mr. William J. Naperstick, for appellees.
Relator argues that the finding of the Industrial Commission in favor of claimant constitutes a gross abuse of discretion and that a writ of mandamus should issue directing the commission to deny claimant's application for an additional award. It is relator's contention that the safety device on the cutting saw used by claimant complies with the specific safety requirements adopted by the commission and, because there is no specific requirement that the guard be adjustable, "failure to adjust is not a proper basis on which to base a finding of a violation of a specific safety requirement."
In the recent case of State, ex rel. M.T.D. Products, v. Stebbins (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 114, where a safety device malfunctioned causing a machine to injure an employee, this court held that "the purpose of the safety regulation [guards on molding machines] is to provide reasonable safety for employees. * * * The fact that a safety device that otherwise complies with the safety regulations failed on a single occasion is not alone sufficient to find that the safety regulation was violated." Such safety regulation, this court said, "does not purport to impose absolute liability for an additional award * * *."
In this case, as in M.T.D., the machine was equipped with a safety device. The fact that it was improperly adjusted at the time claimant was injured is not a violation of a specific safety requirement that "cutting tools shall be guarded."
Therefore, on authority of M.T.D. Products, the allowance of an additional award in this case was an abuse of the Industrial Commission's discretion.
Accordingly, relator, having sustained its burden of showing a clear legal right thereto, is entitled to a writ of mandamus as prayed for. State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, for the reasons stated, reversed, and the writ of mandamus is allowed.
Judgment reversed and writ-allowed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.