State ex rel. Dept. of Indus. v. Russell

64 Ohio Law. Abs. 331
CourtCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1952
DocketNo. 628204
StatusPublished

This text of 64 Ohio Law. Abs. 331 (State ex rel. Dept. of Indus. v. Russell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Dept. of Indus. v. Russell, 64 Ohio Law. Abs. 331 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1952).

Opinion

[332]*332OPINION

By THOMAS, J.

Pursuant to §1032-1 GC, the defendant, who operates Cuy La Nursing Home appeals Public Order 4190 issued under §1032 GC, by the plaintiff Ohio Department of Industrial Relations on November 9, 1950.

In a large house of frame construction located in Wickliffe, Lake county, with part of the property situated in Euclid, Cuyahoga county, the defendant operates a nursing home for women who are over 65 years of age. At the time of the court’s inspection of the premises made at the request of the parties, 11 women, all of whom were observed to walk freely, resided on the second floor. The use of this second floor to shelter ambulatory residénts is the subject of this appeal. .Fire escapes lead to either end of the second floor, and the doors to these escapes are equipped with conventional rather than panic hardware and were unlocked at the time of the court’s inspection.

The defendant is now licensed and has been licensed for several years by the Ohio Department of Public Welfare “to operate a home for aged or physically or mentally infirm as defined by §6289-1 GC.” The present license “authorizes the care of a maximum of- 38 residents including not more than 20 bedfast or helpless patients on the first floor and fully ambulatory residents only on the second floor.”

Notwithstanding the fact that the Ohio Department of Public Welfare has specifically granted the defendant the privilege of operating a home for the aged and of housing fully ambulatory residents on the second floor, another state department, the Department of Industrial Relations, is commanding her to cease using the second floor by an order which reads that “In homes of frame construction no patients shall be cared for other than on the first or grade floor.”

Since the Department of Industrial Relations under §§1031, 1032 GC, seeks to stop the use of the second floor of defendant’s home for the aged while simultaneously the Department of Public Welfare under §6289-1 GC, et seq., has licensed the use of said second floor of defendant’s home it becomes necessary to examine and construe these several sections of law which give rise to apparently conflicting acts of two executive departments of the state government.

Sec. 6289-1 GC defines a rest home or convalescent home or boarding home for the aged or mentally or physically infirm [333]*333as “any place of abode, building, institution, residence or home used for the reception and care, for a consideration, of three or more persons who, by reason of age or mental or physical infirmities are not capable of properly caring for themselves, or who are sixty-five years of age or upwards.”

Sec. 6289-1 GC, et seq., were enacted in 1941.

It is evident that the defendant operates a home as therein defined.

Secs. 6289-2, 6289-3 GC, require that such a home be licensed annually by the Department of Public Welfare of Ohio “in accordance with such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the director of public welfare.”

Sec. 6289-4 GC provides that:

“The department of industrial relations of the state of Ohio, the department of health and the division of state fire marshal, shall, upon the request of the department of public welfare of the state of Ohio, make such inspection of such home as may be deemed necessary and shall report in writing to the department of public welfare whether the building or buildings used or intended to be used for such home are substantially safe for the purpose intended, and in compliance with the building code of the state, and such other findings and recommendations as may be requested by the department of public welfare or deemed necessary by the department making such reports.

“No license shall be granted unless the director of public welfare shall be satisfied that such home is satisfactory in construction, fire prevention and protection, heating, water supply and sanitation, and that it is adequately equipped and maintains a personnel sufficient in number and training to care properly for inmates of such home.”

By duly promulgated regulations the director of public welfare on the 9th day of February, 1950, has ordered that:

“No license ‘shall be issued by the division of social administration for the operation of a home for the care of the aged as defined by §6289-1 GC unless the division has received a statement in writing, as required by §6289-4 GC, from each of the following departments or divisions;

“(1) A statement from the Department of Industrial Relations of the state of Ohio showing whether or not the building in which the applicant proposes to operate or is operating is substantially safe for the purpose intended.

“(2) A statement from the state or local'department of health showing whether or not the water supply of the applicant is safe, and whether or not adequate sanitary facilities are being maintained on the premises of the applicant.

“(3) A statement from the division of the state fire mar[334]*334shal or from an authorized fire official having jurisdiction over the area in which such home is located, shows whether or not the building or buildings of the applicant are satisfactory in construction, have adequate means of escape and proper facilities for fire protection.”

Though the record does not clearly show whether or not the statements required by said regulations were obtained prior to the issuance of the license, it must and will be presumed from its issuance that the requirements of the law and the regulations have been met.

Public Building Order 4190 is issued in accordance with §1032 GC and therefore must draw its life from whatever powers are vested in the Department of Industrial Relations by §§1031, 1032 GC. These cognate sections became law in 1908.

Sec. 1031 GC provides for the “Department of Industrial Relations to inspect all school houses, colleges, opera houses, halls, theaters, churches, infirmaries, children’s homes, hospitals, medical institutes, asylums, and other buildings used for the assemblage or betterment of people in the state.”

It is clear that homes for the aged are not expressly enumerated in §1031 GC though conceivably they may fall within the language “asylums, and other buildings used for the assemblage or betterment of people in the state.” See 1939 A. G. Opinions 1125.

Sec. 1031 GC goes on to say that “such inspections shall be made with special reference to precautions for the prevention of fires, the provision of fire escapes, exits, emergency exits, hallways, air space, and such other matters which relate to the health and safety of those occupying or assembled in such structures.”

Sec. 1032 GC follows up with the provision that the inspector shall file with the Department of Industrial Relations a written report of the condition of the building inspectéd.

It further provides that “if it is found that necessary precautions for the prevention of fire or other disaster have not been taken or that means for the safe and speedy egress of persons assembled therein have not been provided, such report shall specify what appliances, additions or alterations are necessary therefor.” The Department shall thereupon “issue an order in writing stating what necessary appliances, additions or alterations shall be added to or made in such structure.”

From a comparison of §§1031, 1032 GC with Sec.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Norfolk & Ocean View Railway Co. v. Consolidated Turnpike Co.
68 S.E. 346 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 Ohio Law. Abs. 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-dept-of-indus-v-russell-ohctcomplcuyaho-1952.