2021 Ohio 1649
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- On January 6, 2016 a boiler at Crossroads Westside exploded while Blau technicians John Heiert and Robert Coakley were troubleshooting boiler 2; the explosion was caused by a hard-wired jumper on the oil/gas toggle switch that opened the main gas valve during purge.
- The central factual dispute was who installed the jumper: Cincinnati Air had worked on the boilers in December 2015 and removed a flame safeguard control for testing; Cincinnati Air and its technician Mike Cordeiro deny installing any jumper.
- Facilities director Richard Goodson observed Cincinnati Air swap parts and later observed Blau swap parts; Goodson testified Heiert said he would "wire the gas valve" to test it and Heiert admitted removing/lowering the toggle switch to take meter readings but denied installing a jumper.
- Expert reports conflicted or were inconclusive: Envita found the black jumper and opined it was installed during Blau’s troubleshooting; plaintiffs’ expert(s) acknowledged the jumper was hard-wired, conceded limited evidentiary basis to identify the installer, and could not exclude multiple possible actors.
- Defendants (Crossroads, Crossroads Westside, Goodson, and Cincinnati Air) moved for summary judgment on lack of proof that any defendant installed the jumper; the trial court granted summary judgment and declined to apply res ipsa loquitur.
- The First District affirmed: plaintiffs produced only speculation/opportunity evidence and no direct proof linking any defendant to installation; res ipsa was improper because exclusive control of the instrumentality could not be shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because triable issues exist on negligence/causation | Heiert/Coakley argued inconsistent witness statements, access/opportunity, and expert opinion create a factual dispute as to who installed the jumper | Defendants argued there is no evidence any defendant installed the jumper or acted negligently — only speculation and opportunity | Affirmed summary judgment for defendants; speculation/opportunity insufficient to create genuine issue of material fact about who installed the jumper |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur should have applied | Plaintiffs argued the jumper and explosion permit an inference of negligence by defendants | Defendants argued multiple parties (including plaintiff Heiert) had access/control and exclusive control cannot be shown | Res ipsa inapplicable: no exclusive management/control and multiple possible responsible parties; doctrine cannot be invoked |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996) (summary-judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996) (party moving for summary judgment must initially show absence of genuine issue; nonmoving party must then produce specific facts)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984) (elements of actionable negligence)
- Hake v. George Wiedemann Brewing Co., 23 Ohio St.2d 65, 262 N.E.2d 703 (1970) (elements and function of res ipsa loquitur)
- Shields v. King, 40 Ohio App.2d 77, 317 N.E.2d 922 (1st Dist. 1973) (res ipsa and multiple-defendant contexts)
- Dearth v. Self, 8 Ohio App.2d 33, 220 N.E.2d 728 (4th Dist. 1966) (limits on res ipsa where multiple independent actors could be responsible)
- Parras v. Standard Oil Co., 160 Ohio St. 315, 116 N.E.2d 300 (1953) (mere speculation is insufficient; need evidence from which reasonable inference may be drawn)
- Eannottie v. Carriage Inn of Steubenville, 155 Ohio App.3d 57, 799 N.E.2d 189 (7th Dist. 2003) (res ipsa improper if others had partial control of the instrumentality)