2019 Ohio 363
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On August 26, 2015, plaintiff Kossi Logossou, an AdvancePierre employee, inserted his hand into a mixing machine to remove meat and was severely injured when a co-worker energized the machine, resulting in amputation of three fingers.
- Logossou sued AdvancePierre (employer-intentional-tort and negligence) and inspection contractors Ascent Safety Services, LLC and Matrix Claims Management, Inc. (negligent-inspection).
- AdvancePierre, Ascent, and Matrix each moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the trial court dismissed all claims, holding workers’ compensation barred negligence against the employer, the intentional-tort claim failed heightened pleading, and negligent-inspection failed for lack of duty.
- On appeal, the First District reviewed de novo, accepting complaint allegations and drawing reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor.
- The court held Logossou pleaded sufficient facts under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A to state a negligent-inspection claim against Ascent and Matrix, and under R.C. 2745.01(C)/Mitchell to state an employer-intentional-tort claim against AdvancePierre for alleged deliberate removal of safety guards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent-inspection claim against Ascent/Matrix survives notice pleading | Logossou: Ascent/Matrix contracted to inspect the mixer, certified compliance, owed duty, and negligently failed to ensure proper guarding causing injury | Ascent/Matrix: Mitchell/Capots heightened pleading applies; plaintiff failed to plead facts showing duty or sufficient particularity | Held: Notice pleading applies; complaint alleges facts sufficient under Restatement §324A to state negligent-inspection claim — reversal on this ground |
| Whether employer-intentional-tort claim against AdvancePierre meets heightened pleading | Logossou: Alleges AdvancePierre knew guards were required, knew mixer lacked guards, deliberately removed guards, and required him to work exposing him to substantially certain injury | AdvancePierre: Plaintiff failed to plead particularized facts showing deliberate intent or removal of guards as required by Mitchell and R.C. 2745.01 | Held: Complaint sufficiently alleges deliberate removal of safety guards and particularized facts under Mitchell/R.C.2745.01(C); claim survives — reversal on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 532 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 1988) (heightened pleading required for employer-intentional-tort claims)
- Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56, 565 N.E.2d 584 (Ohio 1991) (clarifies particularity requirement for employer-intentional-tort pleadings)
- Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 134 Ohio St.3d 199, 981 N.E.2d 795 (Ohio 2012) (defines "deliberate removal" of safety guard and creates rebuttable presumption of intent)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79, 814 N.E.2d 44 (Ohio 2004) (standard of review for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions; accept complaint facts and reasonable inferences)
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. DTJ Ents., Inc. (In re Hoyle), 143 Ohio St.3d 197, 36 N.E.3d 122 (Ohio 2015) (equates "substantially certain" with deliberate intent under R.C. 2745.01)