<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pd1:
I am an Ohio resident that worked in Ohio as a truck driver. The freight was chained on the truck and the chain broke causing damage to the truck. I was fired later that week. The employer is holding two weeks pay and a state tax deduction, for damages of the truck. Can this be done leagaly? Is there anything that can be done to fight this action?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My response:
Were you merely an employee? Who owned the trailer? Who owned the chain? Who tied the load down with the chain? How old was the chain? Was it rusty? Did you notice anything wrong with the chain and tie-down prior to the haul?
Well, I searched Ohio law for over an hour, and I could not find anything "on point."
In most States, an employer is liable for acts done by employees during their time at work. This applies to all forms of negligence. An employer can be liable for acts committed by the employee where the employee has carried out their job in a particular way. It is illegal to hold an employee financially responsible for negligent errors and the expenses occasioned thereby.
After reading the following, please consult an Ohio labor lawyer for specifics, because all I could find are the following - - and please, let us know what your attorney says.
§ 4113.04 Prima-facie evidence.
Volume of Ohio Laws: 125 Bill Number: House Bill 1 Effective Date: 10-1-53
Text of Statute
If the employee of any employer referred to in section 4113.03 of the Revised Code receives any personal injury by reason of any defect or unsafe condition in any ways, works, boats, wharves, plant, machinery, appliances, or tools, except simple tools, in any way connected with or in any way used in the business of the employer, such employer is deemed to have had knowledge of such defect before and at the time such injury was so sustained, and when the fact of such defect is made to appear upon trial of an action brought by such employee or his personal or legal representatives against any such employer for damages on account of such injuries so received, the defect is prima-facie evidence of neglect on the part of such employer. The employer may show by way of defense that such defect was not discoverable in the exercise of ordinary care.
History
<GR:"REVISED code?<GR:"TITLE 41?<GR:"4113"<GR:"4113.04"HISTORY: GC <FT:"TIMES Roman?,SR New§ 6243; 101 v 195; Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10-1-53.
§ 4113.06 Negligence of employer. Volume of Ohio Laws: 125 Bill Number: House Bill 1 Effective Date: 10-1-53 Text of Statute When it appears in an action described in section 4113.03 of the Revised Code that the injury or death was caused in whole or in part by the neglect of the employer in failing to properly furnish, maintain, construct, guard, repair, inspect, or protect any of the ways, works, boats, wharves, plant, machinery, appliances, or tools, in any way connected with or in any way used in the business of the employer, in any manner required by the law of this state or of the United States, or by any defective or unsafe condition in the ways, works, boats, wharves, plant, machinery, appliances, or tools, except simple tools, in any way connected with or in any way used in the business of the employer, the fact that such employee continued in said employment with knowledge of such negligent omission or want of care or such defective or unsafe condition is not a defense unless by the terms of his employment it was expressly made the duty of such employee to report such neglect or such defective or unsafe condition to the employer and the evidence discloses that such employee failed so to report, and that the employer was not otherwise possessed of knowledge of such negligent, unsafe, or defective condition. Such employee shall not be held to have assumed the risk of: (A) The negligent act of any fellow servant or employee of such employer, done in obedience to the immediate or peremptory instructions or orders given by the employer, or any other person who has authority to direct the doing of said act; (B) The want of necessary and sufficient rules and regulations, or the lack of enforcement of same, for the government of such employees in the construction, operation, and maintenance of such ways, works, boats, wharves, machinery, plant, appliances, or tools, or the employing or retention of any incompetent servant. History HISTORY: GC § 6245; 101 v 195; Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10-1-53.
------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."
