Barton v. G.E. Baker Constr., Inc.
2011 Ohio 5704
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Barton was injured on a construction site while working for G.E. Baker Construction Inc. in a trench that collapsed.
- Barton sued under Ohio's employer intentional tort statute, R.C. 2745.01, arguing the employer intended to injure him or acted with substantial certainty of injury.
- Evidence showed a trench box was available but not used; witnesses testified safety practices were sometimes bypassed to save time, and there were prior safety issues.
- Baker owner Glen Baker allegedly threatened Barton about using trench boxes, implying termination or adverse consequences for insisting on safety measures.
- OSHA cited Baker for not using trench box or benching in the trench, and Barton claimed standards required protective measures for trenches over five feet.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Baker; on appeal, the court held there are no genuine issues of material fact and Baker is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2745.01 requires specific intent to injure for employer liability | Barton argues evidence supports intent to injure under 2745.01(A)-(B). | Baker contends only criminal-like intent suffices, which is not shown. | No genuine issue; Baker is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
| Whether 2745.01(C) creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to injure for removing an equipment guard | Removal of trench box constitutes removal of an equipment guard, creating a presumption of intent. | Trench box is not an 'equipment safety guard' under 2745.01(C); no presumption applies. | Trench box is not an 'equipment safety guard'; no presumption attaches. |
| Whether, viewing the evidence most favorably to Barton, Baker still warrants judgment as a matter of law | Uncontroverted evidence of unsafe conditions and refusal to provide a trench box creates triable issue. | Even with evidence of safety breaches, no intent to injure is shown. | No genuine issue; Baker entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (2010-Ohio-1027) (statutory purpose requires specific intent to cause injury)
- Fickle v. Conversion Techs. Int’l Inc., 2011-Ohio-2960 (6th Dist. No. WM-10-016) (defines 'equipment safety guard' and limits 2745.01(C) applicability)
- Johnson v. BP Chemicals Inc., 85 Ohio St.3d 298 (1999) (cited in Kaminski dissent regarding threshold of intentional conduct)