2022 Ohio 4366
Ohio2022Background
- Robert Bliss was injured operating a Johns Manville machine; he alleged the machine’s access window (lift apron) had been unbolted or bolts removed, exposing him to harm.
- Bliss sued under Ohio’s employer-intentional-tort statute, R.C. 2745.01, claiming deliberate removal of an “equipment safety guard” and deliberate intent to injure.
- Johns Manville moved for summary judgment arguing the evidence did not show deliberate intent and that the access window was not an "equipment safety guard."
- Bliss opposed with an expert affidavit (Gerald Rennell) opining deliberate removal and intent; the trial court denied a motion to strike the affidavit and denied summary judgment; a jury returned a verdict for Bliss.
- The Sixth District reversed: it struck Rennell’s affidavit as legal conclusions, held the access window was not an "equipment safety guard" under R.C. 2745.01(C), found no evidence of intent under R.C. 2745.01(A), and entered judgment for Johns Manville.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether an appellate court reviewing denial of summary judgment after an adverse verdict must construe the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party; it affirmed the Sixth District’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of appellate review of denial of summary judgment after a verdict | Review must be de novo and construe evidence most strongly for nonmoving party; court may not weigh evidence against nonmovant | Sixth Dist. applied settled de novo standards to the record | Court reaffirmed de novo review requires construing evidence most strongly for the nonmoving party and found the Sixth Dist. did not err in its application |
| Whether the access window (modified lift apron) is an “equipment safety guard” under R.C. 2745.01(C) | Bliss: the window/function served as a guard (citing company materials and testimony); bolts made it a safety feature | Johns Manville: generic use of the word “guard” and the device’s function do not make it an "equipment safety guard" as defined by precedent | Court agreed the access window was not an "equipment safety guard," so Bliss was not entitled to the statutory presumption of intent |
| Admissibility of expert affidavit (Rennell) on deliberate removal/intent | Bliss: Rennell’s affidavit was a permissible expert opinion based on record facts and raised genuine issues of fact | Johns Manville: Rennell’s affidavit improperly advanced legal conclusions about statutory terms and should be struck | The Supreme Court accepted the Sixth Dist.’s conclusion (for purposes of this review) that the affidavit was not admissible; it did not expand or fully decide general admissibility beyond that acceptance |
| Whether evidence established employer’s deliberate intent or substantial certainty of injury under R.C. 2745.01(A) | Bliss: employer’s (alleged) deliberate failure to bolt the window and prior incident showed knowledge and substantial certainty another injury would occur | Johns Manville: at best negligence; no evidence of deliberate intent or substantial certainty | Court held there was no evidence of deliberate intent; negligent conduct alone cannot sustain an employer-intentional-tort claim; summary judgment appropriate as to intent claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Piazza v. Cuyahoga Cty., 138 N.E.3d 1108 (Ohio) (de novo standard for appellate review of summary-judgment denials)
- Comer v. Risko, 833 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio) (summary-judgment standards)
- Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 981 N.E.2d 795 (Ohio) (definition of "equipment safety guard" under R.C. 2745.01)
- Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 983 N.E.2d 1253 (Ohio) (employer not liable for intentional tort absent deliberate intent)
- Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 767 N.E.2d 707 (Ohio) (Civ.R. 56 summary-judgment framework)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 375 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio) (evidence must be construed most strongly for nonmoving party)
- Balson v. Dodds, 405 N.E.2d 293 (Ohio) (denial of summary judgment reviewable after adverse final judgment)
- Continental Ins. Co. v. Whittington, 642 N.E.2d 615 (Ohio) (denial of summary judgment not harmless when based on pure question of law)