Banks v. Bur. of Workers' Comp.
2018 Ohio 5246
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Decedent Daniel Banks, an aluminum extrusion press operator, died when an extrusion press cycled while he was clearing a billet; the press had been set to "automatic" by another worker.
- Banks's employer, BRT Extrusions, had received safety consulting from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (BWC) under statutory programs and the Industry-Specific Safety Program.
- Plaintiff (Elizabeth Banks, administratrix) sued BWC alleging negligent safety consulting: failure to audit/inspect guarding, failure to warn that guarding was inadequate, and recommending inadequate guards.
- BWC moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting public-duty immunity under Ohio law; the Court of Claims granted the motion and found no special relationship between BWC and Banks.
- On appeal, plaintiff argued (1) BWC’s consulting is not a public duty because private parties perform similar work, (2) alternatively a special-relationship exception applies, and (3) the court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend.
- The Tenth District affirmed: it held BWC’s activities implicated statutory/assumed public duties and plaintiff failed to plead the elements of a special relationship; denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BWC's safety consulting is protected by public-duty immunity | Consulting is like private safety work and should not be treated as a public duty (so immunity shouldn't apply) | BWC's inspections/consulting arise from statutory/assumed duties (R.C. chapter 4121 and administrative program), so public-duty immunity applies | BWC's inspecting/consulting duties fall within the statutory/assumed public-duty definition; immunity applies |
| Whether a special relationship exists to overcome public-duty immunity | BWC assumed affirmative duties to Banks and he justifiably relied on BWC; thus the four-part special-relationship test is satisfied | Plaintiff failed to plead facts meeting all four elements (affirmative assumption, knowledge of harm from inaction, direct contact with injured party, justifiable reliance by injured party) | Plaintiff failed to plead factual allegations establishing any required element (notably direct contact and affirmative undertaking toward Banks); no special relationship |
| Whether the Court of Claims should have granted leave to amend the complaint | Leave to amend should have been freely given under Civ.R. 15(A); plaintiff alternatively requested leave in opposition brief | Plaintiff never filed a formal motion or proposed amended complaint; request was a passing alternative in opposition | No abuse of discretion in denying leave where no formal motion or proposed amendment was filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Dep’t of Health, Div. of Pub. Health & Laboratories, 69 Ohio App.3d 480 (10th Dist. 1990) (public-duty doctrine not applied where state lab performed functions identical to private labs)
- Markowitz v. Dep’t of Ins., 144 Ohio App.3d 155 (10th Dist. 2001) (public duties generally do not flow to specific private individuals)
- Shelton v. Indus. Comm., 51 Ohio App.2d 125 (10th Dist. 1976) (statutory inspection/enforcement duties protect the public generally, not particular persons)
- Commerce & Industry Ins. Co. v. Toledo, 45 Ohio St.3d 96 (Ohio 1989) (state must do more than adhere to statute to assume an additional affirmative duty for special-relationship purposes)