Case Title: State ex rel. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 2003-Ohio-4831

Docket Number: 20021877

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-09-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm. , 100 Ohio St.3d 26, 
2003-Ohio-4831.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. WHEELING-PITTSBURGH STEEL CORPORATION, APPELLEE, 
v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO; FADELEY, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 100 
Ohio St.3d 26, 2003-Ohio-4831.] 
Workers’ compensation — Employee falls from unguarded side of emergency 
walkway of an overhead crane — Violation of a specific safety 
requirement alleged — Guarding of elevated platforms, runways, and 
walkways — Where operating conditions necessitate the omission of a 
standard guard railing, Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-02(D)(4) does not 
require alternative protection — Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-02(D)(4), 
construed and applied. 
(No. 2002-1877 — Submitted June 24, 2003 — Decided September 24, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 01AP-1285, 2002-
Ohio-4854. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellee, Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, used overhead 
cranes in its Mingo Junction plant.  In one building, two cranes moved north-
south along an approximately 600-foot track above blast furnaces.  A walkway 
ran parallel to the path of the crane for its entire length.  This walkway was 
designed to provide a constant means of exiting the crane in an emergency.  The 
east side of the walkway was guarded.  The west side—onto which the crane’s 
cab door opened—was not, to allow the operator to step from the cab to the 
emergency walkway unimpeded. 
{¶2} 
Joseph Fadeley was operating one of those cranes on June 20, 
1999.  While the events of that night will never be fully known, coworkers 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
indicated that Fadeley had complained of a malfunctioning air-conditioning unit 
in his crane earlier that shift.  Shortly after 7:45 p.m., a fellow employee heard 
Fadeley’s crane moving north, possibly to escape the heat and smoke from a ladle 
below.  When Fadeley’s crane later failed to respond to repeated requests for 
assistance, coworkers went to investigate and found Fadeley lying dead in a ladle, 
at least 80 feet below.  All agree that Fadeley must have fallen from the 
unguarded side of the emergency walkway. 
{¶3} 
After decedent’s death claim was allowed, his surviving spouse, 
Kimberly, appellant-claimant herein, filed for additional compensation, alleging 
violations of more than one specific safety requirement (“VSSR”).  One of the 
violations asserted was of Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-02(D): 
{¶4} 
“(D) Elevated platforms, runways and walkways. 
{¶5} 
“* * *  
{¶6} 
“(1) Guarding. 
{¶7} 
“(a) Elevated platforms, runways and walkways six feet or more 
above floor or ground level shall be guarded with standard railings and toeboards. 
* * *   
{¶8} 
“(b) When the requirement prescribed above would result in an 
impairment of the work being performed, alternative protection may be provided 
for employees.  Such alternative protection shall provide safety equivalent to or 
greater than that required in paragraph (D)(1)(a) of this rule. 
{¶9} 
“* * * 
{¶10} “(4) Special purpose runways. 
{¶11} “Runways used exclusively for special purposes, such as oiling, 
shafting, or filling tank cars, may have the railing on one side omitted where 
operating conditions necessitate such omission, provided the falling hazard is 
minimized by using a runway of not less than eighteen inches wide.” 
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶12} At a hearing of the Industrial Commission of Ohio, Wheeling-
Pittsburgh argued that the walkway was a special-purpose walkway and that 
operating conditions necessitated omission of guarding on the walkway’s west 
side.  The claimant countered (1) that operating conditions did not necessitate 
omission of a guardrail, and (2) that the walkway was not used exclusively for a 
special purpose. 
{¶13} The commission ruled in favor of the claimant.  The commission 
found that operating conditions did not require omission of protection, based on 
Wheeling-Pittsburgh’s postaccident erection of a modified rail/gate system on the 
walkway’s west side that did not interfere with the crane’s operation.  
Consequently, it found that the exception of Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-02(D)(4) 
did not apply and that the open west side constituted a violation of Ohio 
Adm.Code 4121:1-5-02(D)(1). 
{¶14} Wheeling-Pittsburgh petitioned the Court of Appeals for Franklin 
County for a writ of mandamus ordering the commission to vacate its order and 
deny the award for a VSSR.  The court of appeals granted the writ, guided by the 
principle that because awards for VSSRs are penalties, all reasonable doubts as to 
interpretation and application of specific safety requirements must be resolved in 
the employer’s favor.  State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 
170, 172, 545 N.E.2d 1216; State ex rel. Carder v. Indus. Comm. (2002), 94 Ohio 
St.3d 165, 166-167, 761 N.E.2d 32.  It held that (D)(4)’s specification of “the 
railing” as a potential obstruction meant the “standard railing” required by Ohio 
Adm.Code 4121:1-5-02(D)(1)(a) and defined by subsection (E).  In other words, 
if operating conditions necessitated absence of the standard guard railing referred 
to in (D)(1)(a), no more was required to establish the applicability of (D)(4)’s 
special-purpose runway exception.  Contrary to what the magistrate proposed, the 
employer did not have to show that operating conditions necessitated the absence 
of standard guard railing and any of the other forms of protection envisioned by 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-02(D)(1)(b), such as the nonstandard railing ultimately 
installed. 
{¶15} The court of appeals also ruled that once the exception applied, no 
form of protection was required as a substitute for the standard guard rail omitted 
from one side.  It rejected the claimant’s contention that alternative protection was 
still required.  She now appeals to this court as a matter of right. 
{¶16} There are two issues:  What does Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-
02(D)(4) require, and when does it apply?  The claimant argues that protection 
was required on the walkway’s open side because the (D)(4) exception did not 
apply.  Alternatively, she contends that even if controlling, (D)(4) excuses only 
the standard guard railing required by 4121:1-5-02(D)(1)(a), not the alternative 
protection required by (D)(1)(b).  We disagree with both propositions. 
{¶17} The first flaw in claimant’s position derives from her second 
argument, which would in effect eliminate the (D)(4) exception or, at a minimum, 
render it redundant.  If (D)(4) required alternative protection for a special-purpose 
walkway when a standard guard railing is impractical, then the effect of (D)(4) 
would be much the same as (D)(1)(a) and (b), and its inclusion would be 
redundant and pointless. 
{¶18} Such a reading also defies logic.  The (D)(4) exception demands 
that the falling hazard be “minimized” by using a walkway at least 18 inches 
wide.  If the claimant’s interpretation is accepted, however, the falling hazard 
must be virtually eliminated, not merely minimized, by means equivalent to the 
standard railing, according to (D)(1)(b).  Consequently, it makes no sense that the 
code’s authors would require employers to minimize a nonexistent hazard. 
{¶19} The claimant’s interpretation of (D)(4) is also undermined by the 
principle that specific safety requirements must contain “such lawful, specific and 
definite requirements or standards of conduct * * * which are of a character 
plainly to apprise an employer of his legal obligations toward his employees.”  
January Term, 2003 
5 
State ex rel. Holdosh v. Indus. Comm.  (1948), 149 Ohio St. 179, 36 O.O. 516, 78 
N.E.2d 165, at syllabus.  Nothing in Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-02(D)(4) plainly 
apprises an employer that where a standard guard railing is impractical, 
alternative protection must be provided.  Moreover, when viewed with the tenet 
that a specific safety requirement, being a penalty, must be strictly construed in 
the employer’s favor, the claimant’s reading of the (D)(4) exception cannot stand.  
State ex rel. Burton. 
{¶20} We find, therefore, that where operating conditions necessitate the 
omission of standard guard railing, (D)(4) does not require alternative protection.  
Inquiry turns then to whether Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-02(D)(4) applies.  There 
is little debate that the walkway at issue was a special-purpose one, intended for 
emergency use by crane operators.  This conclusion, however, does not 
automatically exempt the employer from the guardrail requirement of (D)(1)(a), 
for it is, after all, still an elevated runway.  To the contrary, guard railing can be 
omitted only “where operating conditions necessitate.” 
{¶21} The commission found that operating conditions did not 
necessitate omission, based solely on Wheeling-Pittsburgh’s postaccident erection 
of a modified railing/gate system that permitting escape without hindering the 
crane’s function.  The court of appeals declared that finding to be an abuse of 
discretion, stressing the exact language of (D)(4):  special-purpose runways “may 
have the railing on one side omitted where operating conditions necessitate.”  
(Emphasis added.)  Therefore, the only germane consideration was whether 
standard guard railing as defined in 4121:1-5-02(E) would interfere with the 
operating conditions of the crane.  Here, it is uncontested that the modified 
gate/railing system was not a “standard guard railing” as defined in Ohio 
Adm.Code 4121:1-5-01(B)(131) and 4121:1-5-02(E), since it lacked the 
intermediate rail required by that definition of standard guard railing.  
Accordingly, the court of appeals held that it was irrelevant whether the operating 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
conditions of the runway and crane could be maintained with the modified 
rail/gate.  What mattered was whether the integrity of the operation could be 
maintained with an Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-02(E) standard guard railing in 
place.  While the commission did not directly answer this question, its order 
suggests that operations could not be maintained with a standard guard railing. 
{¶22} The preeminent concern underlying the walkway’s construction 
was the availability of an immediate and accessible way to exit the crane in case 
of emergency.  The commission concluded that the absence of an intermediate rail 
offered “a means of escape from the crane in the event of an emergency, with a 
single railing not providing a total restriction on the operator’s ability to get to the 
emergency walkway.”  This implies that the intermediate rail required by standard 
guard railing would restrict the operator’s escape, and common sense corroborates 
this. 
{¶23} We also disapprove of the commission’s use of Wheeling-
Pittsburgh’s subsequent attempts to enhance worker safety as essentially a means 
to penalize the employer.  In this case, a tragic accident occurred, and Wheeling-
Pittsburgh quickly instituted measures to ensure that such a mishap was never 
repeated.  The commission’s reasoning is a true disincentive to such remedial 
efforts, for had Wheeling-Pittsburgh done nothing, the commission apparently 
would have had no evidence from which to conclude that operating conditions 
could have been unimpaired by standard guard railing.  We will not validate such 
a rationale. 
{¶24} Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR 
and 
O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2003 
7 
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., dissenting. 
{¶25} I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. 
F.E. SWEENEY, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Joseph A. Brunetto and Randall 
W. Mikes, for appellee. 
The Okey Law Firm, L.P.A., Richard A. Nicodemo and Scott A. Washam, 
for appellant. 
__________________