The Supreme Court of Ohio on Thursday affirmed an additional award to a roofer who was injured in a fall attributed to violations of safety standards.

Thomas Trousdale fell 22 feet from the pitched roof of a two-story apartment building in Sandusky, Ohio, while working for Huron, Ohio-based Byington Builders Ltd., suffering multiple injuries to his back, hips and other body parts. Following his workers compensation claim, the Ohio Industrial Commission awarded him additional compensation for the violation of a specific safety requirement by Byington Builders, according to documents in The State Ex. Rel. Byington Builders Ltd. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, filed in Columbus, Ohio.

At the hearing, several workers testified “that on the day that Trousdale fell, no catch platforms had been installed and no safety belts, harnesses, or lifelines were being used by anyone working on the apartment roof. Byington admitted that he did not require his employees to use safety harnesses and that he was aware that no one was using safety equipment on this job,” documents state.

“Trousdale testified that a few days before he fell, another Byington Builders employee fell from the same roof and landed on an apartment balcony. According to Trousdale, Byington Builders made no changes in the use of safety equipment after this incident.” 

Yet the employer “presented conflicting testimony about whether any safety harnesses and lifelines were available at the job site. (The employer and managers) all testified that they had made Trousdale aware that safety harnesses and lifelines were kept in an equipment trailer that, according to Byington, was located 10 feet from the building from which Trousdale fell,” records state.

Officials with Byington, which could not immediately be reached for comment, appealed the additional award of 40% of Mr. Trousdale’s maximum weekly rate on several grounds, including that the commission abused its discretion, according to documents.

In a split decision with one judge dissenting and two of the six remaining judges concurring in judgment only, the state Supreme Court affirmed the additional award to Mr. Trousdale, stating that his choice to not use a harness — voiced as one of the reasons the award is not warranted — did not “constitute ‘unilateral negligence,’” according to the ruling.

“Had Byington Builders required its crew to use safety harnesses attached to lifelines that were securely attached to the structure and had Trousdale alone, unbeknownst to Byington Builders, failed to heed that instruction, we would likely view this case differently,” the ruling states.

The dissenting judge wrote that he would vacate the award because “the plain language of Ohio… (law) does not require an employer to fasten lifelines for its roofers,” among other reasons.