Bliss v. Johns Manville Corp.
172 N.E.3d 1146
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- On November 17, 2015, John Bliss suffered a degloving injury to his right hand while clearing an obstructed sensor on a Base Fiber Feeder by opening an access window on a lift apron while the machine was running.
- Johns Manville had previously (after a 2013 incident) modified two lift aprons by adding bolts to the access windows; a spare lift apron (swapped into service before the injury) lacked those bolts.
- Bliss sued under R.C. 2745.01 for an employer intentional tort, arguing deliberate removal of an "equipment safety guard" created a rebuttable presumption of intent to injure; he submitted an expert affidavit by Gerald Rennell to support that claim.
- The trial court denied Johns Manville’s motion to strike Rennell’s affidavit and denied summary judgment, the case proceeded to a jury, and the jury awarded Bliss $451,000.
- On appeal the Sixth District held the trial court erred: Rennell’s affidavit improperly offered legal conclusions on statutory terms and should have been stricken; the modified lift apron/access window is not an "equipment safety guard" under R.C. 2745.01; no evidence showed deliberate intent to injure, so summary judgment for the employer should have been granted and the jury verdict was vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike expert affidavit | Rennell’s affidavit creates factual disputes about deliberate removal and guard status | Affidavit offers legal conclusions on statutory terms and is inadmissible on summary judgment | Trial court abused discretion by denying strike; affidavit should have been stricken |
| Whether the access window/bolts are an "equipment safety guard" under R.C. 2745.01(C) | Bolts and prior modification transformed the access into a safety guard; removal (or lack of bolts) triggers statutory presumption | Access window was designed to permit viewing/access, bolts only made opening harder and did not convert it into a guard | Modified lift apron/access window is not an "equipment safety guard" |
| Whether "deliberate removal" and presumption of intent apply | Failure to bolt the spare apron amounted to deliberate removal, supporting presumption of intent to injure | Replacing an apron without bolts (or failing to bolt) is at most negligent, not a deliberate decision to eliminate a guard | No deliberate removal shown; no statutory presumption of intent applies |
| Whether summary judgment should have been granted / jury verdict sustained | Evidence and expert testimony created triable issues for the jury; verdict for Bliss justified | No admissible evidence of guard/deliberate removal or intent to injure; summary judgment/JNOV appropriate | Summary judgment should have been granted for Johns Manville; jury verdict vacated and judgment entered for defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 981 N.E.2d 795 (Ohio 2012) (defines "equipment safety guard" and "deliberate removal" under R.C. 2745.01)
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 927 N.E.2d 1066 (Ohio 2010) (explains limited recovery under R.C. 2745.01 requires specific intent)
- Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 927 N.E.2d 1092 (Ohio 2010) (clarifies intentional-tort standard and limits employer liability absent specific intent)
- Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 983 N.E.2d 1253 (Ohio 2012) (reiterates that placing an employee in a dangerous situation is not proof of intent to injure)
- Turner v. Dimex, LLC, 147 N.E.3d 35 (Ohio App. 2019) (declines to expand "equipment safety guard" to certain safety components or systems)