impossibility defense in Ohio

2024A contemnor’s “unsubstantiated claims of financial difficulties do not establish an impossibility defense to a contempt charge.” Liming v. Damos, 133 Ohio St.3d 509 , 2012- Ohio-4783, 979 N.E.2d 297 .

2024A contemnor’s “unsubstantiated claims of financial difficulties do not establish an impossibility defense to a contempt charge.” Liming v. Damos, 133 Ohio St.3d 509 , 2012- Ohio-4783, 979 N.E.2d 297 .

2026Id. {¶ 42} This also explains why Whirlpool has established the first prong of an impossibility defense to the violation of a specific safety requirement (“VSSR”).

2024Comm., 61 Ohio St.3d 445 (1991) (finding the commission did not abuse its discretion in granting a VSSR award and finding that while it would have been difficult to follow the guarding requirement, it was not impossible). {¶ 70} The SHO noted Whirlpool’s impossibility defense, stating: “The Employer also asserted that standard guard railing over the conveyor would have impaired the work being performed.” (Stip. at 307.) Despite discussion of the impossibility of guarding the area over the conveyor, the SHO rejected Whirlpool’s impossibility defense by finding that “standard guard railing of th

2023No. 107400, 2019-Ohio-3364, ¶ 55 , citing Wagshul v. Wagshul, 2d Dist.

2019Tuscarawas No. 2017 AP 06 0017, 2018-Ohio-322 (finding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding contemnor had an inability to pay a spousal support order due to his involuntary termination.); Wagshul v. Wagshul, 2d Dist.

2018Corp. of Am. v. Benfield , 117 Ohio St.3d 352 , 2008-Ohio-938 , 884 N.E.2d 12 , ¶ 37 ("When a trial court makes factual findings * * * supporting its determination that a contract is or is not unconscionable, such as any findings regarding the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract, those factual findings should be reviewed with great deference."). {¶ 14} Here, the trial court found that the arbitration clause was unenforceable under the doctrine of impossibility.

2018Corp. of Am. v. Benfield , 117 Ohio St.3d 352 , 2008-Ohio-938 , 884 N.E.2d 12 , ¶ 37 ("When a trial court makes factual findings * * * supporting its determination that a contract is or is not unconscionable, such as any findings regarding the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract, those factual findings should be reviewed with great deference."). {¶ 14} Here, the trial court found that the arbitration clause was unenforceable under the doctrine of impossibility.

2005Pa. 2002), 82 F.Supp.2d 434 , 439 (recognizing that a contracting party assumes the risk of the inability to pay money and that the doctrine of impossibility does not apply when a duty to pay is breached); Christy v. Pilkinton (1954), 224 Ark. 407 , 273 S.W.2d 533 ("There is a familiar distinction between objective impossibility, which amounts to saying, `The thing cannot be done,' and subjective impossibility — `I cannot do it.' Rest., Contracts, § 455; Williston on Contracts, § 1932.

2005Pa. 2002), 82 F.Supp.2d 434 , 439 (recognizing that a contracting party assumes the risk of the inability to pay money and that the doctrine of impossibility does not apply when a duty to pay is breached); Christy v. Pilkinton (1954), 224 Ark. 407 , 273 S.W.2d 533 ("There is a familiar distinction between objective impossibility, which amounts to saying, `The thing cannot be done,' and subjective impossibility — `I cannot do it.' Rest., Contracts, § 455; Williston on Contracts, § 1932.

2005Pa. 2002), 82 F.Supp.2d 434 , 439 (recognizing that a contracting party assumes the risk of the inability to pay money and that the doctrine of impossibility does not apply when a duty to pay is breached); Christy v. Pilkinton (1954), 224 Ark. 407 , 273 S.W.2d 533 ("There is a familiar distinction between objective impossibility, which amounts to saying, `The thing cannot be done,' and subjective impossibility — `I cannot do it.' Rest., Contracts, § 455; Williston on Contracts, § 1932.

1993Id.

1993The Supreme Court discussed the impossibility defense in White v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 39 , 564 N.E.2d 462 .

1993The Supreme Court discussed the impossibility defense in White v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 39 , 564 N.E.2d 462 .