Broyles v. Kasper Machine Co.
865 F. Supp. 2d 887
S.D. Ohio2012Background
- Plaintiff Richard Broyles, supervisor at IAC Sydney, was paralyzed from the waist down after an injury at Bay 26, an automated molding line installed by IMS Deltamatic Group.
- Bay 26 includes a carousel with guarding, interlocking doors, a light curtain, SICK eye, and warning signage; a gap between fence and carousel allowed access.
- Broyles entered the fenced area to observe a misfeeding issue, despite authority to stop production and existing safety safeguards.
- Broyles climbed onto the carousel during operation while operators continued production, and the carousel rotated, causing his fall.
- IAC Sydney seeks summary judgment on intentional tort; IMS Deltamatic seeks summary judgment on defective design and failure-to-warn claims; the court grants both motions and terminates the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IAC Sydney intentionally tortured Broyles (intent to injure) under ORC 2745.01 | Broyles argues employer had intent or substantially certain outcome. | IAC Sydney did not act with intent to injure or sanction unsafe bypassing. | Granted for IAC Sydney. |
| Whether Bay 26’s design was defective under ORC 2307.75 | Bay 26 could have safer design to prevent bypass. | Compliance with standards does not preclude liability; however, design changes not proven necessary. | Summary judgment for IMS Deltamatic denied on proximate cause, but court assumes standards may inform, not require, liability. |
| Whether IMS Deltamatic violated ORC 2307.76 by failing to warn | Warning was inadequate or improperly communicated. | Adequate warnings existed in manuals and signage; post-marketing warnings not required here. | Summary judgment for IMS Deltamatic granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods., 125 Ohio St.3d 250, 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 2010) (Legislation governing employer intentional torts; design and warning considerations)
- Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 125 Ohio St.3d 280, 125 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 2010) (Further clarification on intentional tort standards under ORC 2745.01)
- Sours v. General Motors Corp., 717 F.2d 1511, 717 F.2d 1511 (6th Cir. 1983) (Compliance with safety standards may be considered but not dispositive in defective design claims)
- Freas v. Prater Constr. Corp., Inc., 60 Ohio St.3d 6, 60 Ohio St.3d 6 (Ohio 1991) (Warning must be read and heeded; proper warning can negate defectively dangerous condition)