McCarthy v. Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
951 N.E.2d 441
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- McCarthy, employee of Kinder Morgan, injured July 5, 2005 transferring liquid from Sterling tank car to Kinder Morgan storage tank when manway separated and he fell 15 feet.
- Plaintiffs sued Sterling, ACF Industries, Rescar, Texana, and Kinder Morgan; Kinder Morgan was sued as an employer in various counts.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Kinder Morgan on intentional-tort claim under R.C. 2745.01 and allowed jury apportionment against nonparties.
- Jury verdicts: directed verdicts for ACF and Texana on liability due to a May 2000 valve replacement; jury found no negligence by Sterling, Rescar, McCarthy, or Kinder Morgan.
- Trial court granted a new trial for the plaintiffs, holding jury instructions inadequately distinguished common-law duties from industry-regulation duties; Sterling and Rescar appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kinder Morgan is entitled to summary judgment on the intentional-tort claim | McCarthy argues Kinder Morgan’s conduct was intentional or substantially certain to injure. | Kinder Morgan contends no intent or substantial-certainty evidence exists. | Genuine issue of material fact lacking; Kinder Morgan entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
| Standard of review for the trial court's grant of a new trial | McCarthy argues abuse of discretion standard governs; trial court’s reasons are sound. | Sterling/Rescar contend de novo review is proper when legal error is involved. | Court applies Bellman-like analysis; if error of law is shown, de novo review; otherwise abuse of discretion governs. |
| Whether the jury instructions properly distinguish common-law duties from industry regulations | The jury was properly instructed; regulations do not trump common-law duties. | Instruction should have clearly stated regulatory duties do not supersede ordinary care. | Reversal of new-trial grant; no abuse of discretion; instruction adequate and did not misstate law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 2010) (R.C. 2745.01 constitutional holding cited)
- O’Day v. Webb, 29 Ohio St.2d 215 (Ohio 1972) (mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to instruct jury; questions of law)
- Nance v. Akron City Hosp., not official reporter (9th Dist. 2001) (distinguishable; no good-cause showing for new trial)
- Jenkins v. Krieger, 67 Ohio St.2d 314 (Ohio 1981) (standard of review for judgments and instructions)
- Rohde v. Farmer, 23 Ohio St.2d 82 (Ohio 1970) (regulatory vs. common-law duties discussed)