Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co.
2011 Ohio 5413
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Hewitt, a second-step ALBAT apprentice, was injured while working alone in a bucket with energized lines.
- He was told not to wear protective rubber gloves and sleeves that day.
- The incident involved work on de-energized lines that later carried about 7,200 volts.
- L.E. Myers terminated three supervisors after internal investigation.
- Hewitt’s workers’ compensation claim covered multiple injuries, including RSD and burns.
- The trial court denied some pretrial motions and the case proceeded to a jury, which awarded Hewitt damages and against L.E. Myers on liability under RC 2745.01(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying directed verdict and JNOV | Hewitt relied on RC 2745.01(C) and presumption of intent to injure | Myers contends no rebuttable presumption or adequate evidence | Denied; court affirmed denial of directed verdict and JNOV for Hewitt |
| Whether future damages were properly awarded | Hewitt proved future damages; RSD and burns are objective injuries | Damages should be severed or not awarded due to lack of permanency evidence | Affirmed; jury may consider future damages; no JNOV for Myers |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. Gulley, 175 Ohio St. 83 (Ohio 1963) (objective vs subjective injury standard for future damages)
- Fyffe v. Jeno’s Inc., 59 Ohio St.3d 115 (Ohio 1991) (definition of equipment safety guard and related presumption interpretation)
- Fickle v. Conversion Technologies Intl., Inc., 2011-Ohio-2960 (Ohio 6th Dist.) (interpreted term 'equipment safety guard' and 'deliberate removal' for RC 2745.01(C))
- Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 2011-Ohio-1694 (Ohio 8th Dist.) (treatment of employer tort and legislative intent among district courts)
- McKinney v. CSP of Ohio, LLC, 2011-Ohio-3116 (Ohio 6th Dist.) (recognition of rebuttable presumption under RC 2745.01(C) (contextual))