Skip to main content

State ex rel. Camaco, L.L.C. v. Albu (Slip Opinion)

OhioSeptember 14, 2017No. 2015-0036Cited 4 times
Mixed ResultCamaco, L.L.C.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
DeWine, J.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the lower court's denial of mandamus and remanded the case, finding that the employer should not face VSSR liability without knowledge of a specific danger. The court granted a limited writ of mandamus requiring the commission to determine whether Camaco knew or should have known about the latent defect.

Excerpt

Workers' compensation-Violation of a specific safety requirement-Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-17(G)(1)(a)(i)-Protective headgear must be provided whenever employees are required to be in places where their heads are exposed to potential hazards-Employer's argument was not waived-An employer does not face liability for violation of a specific safety requirement when it did not know of the specific danger requiring a safety device-Court of appeals' judgment denying writ of mandamus reversed and limited writ granted.

What This Ruling Means

**Ohio Court Rules on When Employers Must Pay for Safety Violations** This case involved Camaco, L.L.C., an employer facing penalties for violating Ohio's workplace safety rules. The company was cited for not providing protective headgear to workers in areas where their heads could be injured. Camaco argued they shouldn't be held liable because they didn't know about the specific danger that required hard hats. The Ohio Supreme Court sided with Camaco and overturned a lower court's decision. The court ruled that employers cannot be held responsible for violating specific safety requirements if they genuinely didn't know about the particular hazard that made safety equipment necessary. The case was sent back to determine whether Camaco actually knew or should have reasonably known about the hidden danger. This decision matters for workers because it clarifies when employers can be held accountable for safety violations. While employers must still follow safety rules, they may avoid penalties if they can prove they were unaware of specific hazards. Workers should continue reporting unsafe conditions to ensure their employers are properly informed about workplace dangers, as this knowledge makes employers more likely to be held responsible for safety violations.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

State ex rel. Allen Industries, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App.Dec 2024

Objections to magistrate's decision recommending denial of relator's request for a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order granting an employee's application for an additional award of compensation based on a violation of a specific safety requirement and ordering the commission to either deny the application or grant a rehearing are overruled. By its plain language, Ohio Adm.Code 4123-3-13(D)(1) applies when "employees may be exposed to moving ground or cave-ins," and it does not require the employee to be inside a trench. Although the employee's accident occurred in Michigan, Ohio Adm.Code 4123-3-13(D)(1) applies, because compliance with that rule does not preclude an employer from also complying with Michigan's rules, which only apply when an employee is required to enter a trench. Objections overruled, and writ denied.

Defendant Win
State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.
OhioMay 2026
Defendant Win
State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
OhioNov 2024

Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under plain language of R.C. 4123.56(F) and thus was not entitled to receive temporary-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ granted.

Defendant Win
Shabazz
OhioNov 2024

Quo warranto—Mandamus—Appellants failed to challenge court of appeals' judgment dismissing their quo warranto claim on basis of laches and therefore waived that argument—Court of appeals' determination that appellants could not establish entitlement to city-council offices or that appellees were unlawfully holding the positions affirmed—Court of appeals' denial of request for writ of mandamus ordering continued payment of salaries and benefits as moot affirmed.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.