Baker v. Coast to Coast Manpower, L.L.C.
2012 Ohio 2840
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Baker was injured at a Best Buy distribution center in Findlay, Ohio while cutting a taught cable seal on a trailer (Nov. 3, 2007).
- He was employed by Coast to Coast Manpower, LLC as a truck driver; Coast to Coast was an independent contractor hired by Best Buy to perform yard operations and trailer movement.
- Best Buy controlled some yard processes (e.g., dock cueing with light signals) and required orange vests, while Coast to Coast personnel performed the actual yard work.
- Plaintiffs sued Best Buy for duties of care, arguing under the frequenter statute that Best Buy owed a duty due to control over the premises and equipment used to cut cables.
- Best Buy moved for summary judgment arguing no duty, lack of control over independent contractor activities, and assumption of risk; Bakers opposed, asserting duty under the frequenter statute and control/awareness of the risk.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Best Buy; Bakers appealed challenging the duty finding and the supplemental motion for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Best Buy owe a duty of care to Baker? | Baker argues cutting seals is inherently dangerous and Best Buy’s control/participation created a duty under the frequenter doctrine. | Best Buy contends it did not control the manner of cutting or Baker’s activity and thus had no duty; assumption of risk applies. | Best Buy did not owe a duty to Baker. |
| Was the trial court proper in allowing Best Buy to supplement its summary judgment motion and in denying Bakers’ strike/ surreply rights? | Supplement introduces new evidence without opportunity to respond, risking summary judgment by ambush. | Supplemental motion properly allowed; evidence supports existing arguments. | The supplementation was error but harmless; no ambush occurred because the original motion determined the outcome. |
| Is the issue of safety glasses provision by Best Buy to Coast to Coast employees relevant, making the third assignment moot? | Whether Best Buy provided safety glasses affects the duty analysis. | Even if true, the outcome remains that Best Buy had no duty. | Moot; affirmed with duty ruling not affected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sopkovich v. Ohio Edison Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 628 (Ohio 1998) (active participation can create a duty where owner controls critical work aspects)
- Cafferky v. Turner Constr. Co., 21 Ohio St.3d 110 (Ohio 1986) (general control insufficient; must be active participation over a critical aspect)
- Hirschbach v. Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 206 (Ohio 1983) (summary judgment improper where owner controls safety features eliminating hazard)
- Bond v. Howard Corp., 72 Ohio St.3d 332 (Ohio 1995) (general supervisory role insufficient for duty; must direct or permit the injury-causing activity)
- Pusey ex rel. v. Bator, 94 Ohio St.3d 275 (Ohio 2002) (work inherently dangerous; danger recognized in advance; special precautions required)