Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co.
134 Ohio St. 3d 199
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Hewitt, an apprentice lineman, was injured when working alone in an elevated bucket near energized lines and did not wear protective gloves and sleeves.
- L.E. Myers had policy requiring gloves, but Hewitt claims a supervisor told him not to wear them since the line was de-energized.
- Hewitt filed a claim for a workplace intentional tort under R.C. 2745.01 and a related common-law claim after workers’ compensation benefits were awarded.
- The trial court reserved liability theory to the R.C. 2745.01(C) presumption of intent based on deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard.
- The court of appeals held that gloves and sleeves were equipment safety guards and that the supervisor’s decision not to enforce their use constituted deliberate removal, creating a rebuttable presumption of intent.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that gloves and sleeves are not equipment safety guards and that there was no deliberate removal that would trigger the presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is an 'equipment safety guard' under RC 2745.01(C)? | Hewitt argued broad, including personal protective items as guards. | Myers urged a narrower reading limited to devices attached to machinery. | Equipment safety guard is a device designed to shield the operator from exposure to or injury by the equipment. |
| Do protective gloves and sleeves qualify as equipment safety guards? | Gloves/sleeves shield from injury and are barriers against danger. | They are personal protective items controlled by the employee, not equipment guards. | No; gloves and sleeves are not equipment safety guards under RC 2745.01(C). |
| Does failure to require PPE create a deliberate removal under RC 2745.01(C)? | Supervisor’s failure to enforce PPE constitutes deliberate removal. | Failure to train or require PPE does not equal deliberate removal of a guard. | No; such failures do not constitute deliberate removal to trigger the presumption. |
| Is the presumption of intent under RC 2745.01(C) applicable here? | Deliberate removal of guards should create a rebuttable presumption of intent. | Without a qualifying guard, the presumption does not apply. | Presumption does not apply because no equipment safety guard was deliberately removed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fickle v. Conversion Technologies Intematl., Inc., 2011-Ohio-2960 (6th Dist. 2011) (defined 'equipment safety guard' as device designed to shield operator from danger)
- Beyer v. Rieter Automotive N. Am., Inc., 2012-Ohio-2807 (6th Dist. 2012) (expanded scope of 'equipment safety guard' to include certain freestanding equipment)
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (2010) (restricts employer liability in intentional torts under RC 2745.01)
- Stetter v. R.J. Gorman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 125 Ohio St.3d 280 (2010) (historical context limiting expansive interpretations of RC 2745.01)
- Beary v. Larry Murphy Dump Truck Serv., Inc., 2011-Ohio-4977 (5th Dist. 2011) (illustrates scope of 'equipment safety guard' across districts)