2020 Ohio 4355
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Marcus Mennett, a Stauffer employee, was buried when a ~9.5-foot trench collapsed during a municipal street reconstruction project and died two days later.
- Supervisors Jack Stauffer and city superintendent Shawn Adkins observed water seepage and unstable trench sides, ordered work stopped, and left to obtain trench boxes; workers ceased work but Mennett later reentered the trench and was buried.
- OSHA investigated and issued multiple citations, including a willful violation for failing to provide trench protection systems.
- The Estate sued for wrongful death alleging employer intentional tort (R.C. 2745.01) and a co‑employee common‑law intentional tort; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Stauffer, Jack, and John; on appeal the Twelfth District affirmed, finding no evidence of deliberate intent to injure or that coworkers compelled Mennett to continue dangerous work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper on the employer intentional tort claim under R.C. 2745.01 | Stauffer knowingly allowed hazardous conditions, OSHA citations show willfulness and substantial certainty of injury | No evidence employer acted with specific intent or belief injury was substantially certain; supervisors stopped work and sought trench boxes | Affirmed: no deliberate intent; R.C. 2745.01 claim fails |
| Whether OSHA citations and safety failures create a genuine issue of intentionality | OSHA willful citation and lack of trench boxes show deliberate disregard equating to substantial certainty | Regulatory violations or negligence/recklessness do not show specific intent to injure | Affirmed: OSHA violations insufficient to prove deliberate intent |
| Whether the co‑employee common‑law intentional tort claim survives summary judgment | Coworkers effectively required Mennett to remain/work in the trench despite danger | No evidence coworkers forced him to continue; all workers stopped after the order | Affirmed: no evidence of coworkers compelling dangerous work |
| Whether the stop‑work order was factual or disputed such that summary judgment was improper | Estate disputes credibility of witnesses and suggests no stop order or conspiracy | Multiple uncontroverted depositions confirm stop‑work order and that workers ceased trench work | Affirmed: record contains uncontradicted testimony of stop order; no genuine issue of fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Talik v. Fed. Marine Terminals, Inc., 117 Ohio St.3d 496 (2008) (acting with belief injury is "substantially certain" requires more than wanton or reckless conduct)
- Kaminski v. Metal Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (2010) (employer intentional tort recovery requires specific intent to cause injury)
- Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 134 Ohio St.3d 491 (2012) (knowing allowance of hazardous conditions falls short of actual intent to injure)
- Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 125 Ohio St.3d 280 (2010) (R.C. 2745.01 does not abolish the common‑law employer intentional tort cause of action)