Court Opinion

ID: 9801073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:45:37.704705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:50:46.699065
License: Public Domain

Lundberg Stratton, J.,
dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I do not believe that R.C. 4109.02 constitutes a specific safety requirement or standard of conduct because it does not apprise an employer of a legal obligation toward an employee. State ex rel. Lamp v. J.A. Croson Co. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 77, 78, 661 N.E.2d 724, 726. R.C. 4109.02(A) merely requires that an employer who is going to hire a minor first obtain an age and schooling certificate. The statute does not require an employer to take affirmative steps to verify the age of an applicant.
Here, the claimant admitted that he intentionally misrepresented his age when applying for the job. His job application indicated that he had completed four years of high school. The employer inquired about age and education, and when the claimant said that he had four years of high school and was over the age of eighteen, the employer believed that the claimant was of age to be employed. The employer made a reasonable effort to ascertain the age of the claimant. There is no evidence that the employer had actual or implied knowledge of the claimant’s true age. The statute does not require any more.
A VSSR may be found only upon a violation of a specific duty that results in injury. R.C. Chapter 4109 does not create any affirmative duty of an employer to go beyond the representations of a prospective employee that he or she has completed high school and is over age eighteen. If the employer knows that the prospective employee is under the age of eighteen, the employer must obtain an age or schooling certificate. But R.C. Chapter 4109 does not require employers to become detectives, searching for birth certificates or calling schools to verify enrollment, or lack thereof. The claimant said that he had been through four years of high school. The employer had no reason to ask for such a certificate.
In addition, to find a violation of a specific safety requirement, the violation must be the proximate cause of the injury. State ex rel. Bayless v. Indus. Comm. *266(1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 148, 552 N.E.2d 939; State ex rel. Haines v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 15, 58 O.O.2d 70, 278 N.E.2d 24. Here, the employer’s failure to affirmatively ascertain claimant’s age was not the proximate cause of the injury. The claimant’s failure to use a pull-back safety device was the direct and proximate cause of the injury. It is a far stretch to say that the immaturity of youth caused the claimant to exercise poor judgment in not using the safety device.
Because a VSSR is a penalty, all reasonable doubts concerning the interpretation of a specific safety requirement must be construed in favor of the employer. State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 170, 172, 545 N.E.2d 1216, 1219. Strictly construing the statute, I do not believe that the employer violated any safety requirement, or, if it did, that proximate cause was established. Therefore, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and issue a writ.
Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.