Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc.
134 Ohio St. 3d 491
Ohio2012Background
- Houdek injured October 10, 2008, while loading copper at ThyssenKrupp's Cleveland warehouse.
- He returned October 14, 2008, with light-duty restrictions and was assigned to relabel inventory on high racks.
- Relabeling required working in aisles where sideloaders operated; safety measures were lacking (no reflective vests, cones, or expandable gates).
- Houdek told the sideloader operator he'd work in the aisle; an accident occurred when a sideloader entered the narrow, dead-end aisle, injuring him.
- Houdek sued ThyssenKrupp for an employer intentional tort; trial court granted summary judgment for ThyssenKrupp; appellate court reversed.
- The General Assembly enacted R.C. 2745.01 (effective 2005), limiting employer intentional tort liability to deliberate intent to injure or belief injury was substantially certain to occur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 2745.01(B) codify a scrivener's error or require intent to injure? | Houdek argues the statute allows a belief injury was substantially certain to occur to satisfy intent. | ThyssenKrupp argues only deliberate intent to injure or substantial certainty by deliberate intent is actionable. | Statute requires deliberate intent to injure or substantial certainty by deliberate intent. |
| Did ThyssenKrupp deliberately intend to injure Houdek? | Evidence shows supervisory directives and warnings, and failure to safety measures; intent may be inferred from conduct. | No direct or circumstantial proof of deliberate intent to injure Houdek; no evidence of intentional act. | No deliberate intent proven; summary judgment for ThyssenKrupp reinstated. |
| Does R.C. 2745.01(C) create a presumption of intent if safety guards were removed? | Deliberate removal of guards or failure to provide safety measures could prove intent to injure. | No evidence of deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard; the rule does not apply here. | Unclear removal of guards; no applicable presumption; not met here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (2010-Ohio-1027) (statute narrows employer intentional tort to deliberate intent to injure)
- Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 125 Ohio St.3d 280 (2010-Ohio-1029) (confirms narrowing of 2745.01 to specific intent provisions)
- Jones v. VIP Dev. Co., 15 Ohio St.3d 90 (1984) (intent includes belief injury is substantially certain to occur)
- Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chems., Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 608 (1982) (employer not immune from civil liability for intentional torts)
- Brady v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 61 Ohio St.3d 624 (1991) (R.C. 2745.01 unconstitutional when construed as broad immunity)
- Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc., 59 Ohio St.3d 115 (1991) (defined elements of employer intentional tort)
- Johnson v. BP Chems., Inc., 85 Ohio St.3d 298 (1999) (held 1995 version of 2745.01 unconstitutional; strict scrutiny of immunity)