Norman Rudisill v. Ford Motor Company
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4798
6th Cir.2013Background
- Rudisill, Ford employee since 1994, sustained serious injuries at the Ford Cleveland Casting Plant in Brook Park, Ohio.
- Injury arose during removal of a drag flask at the mold line’s pick-off station, where guard rails had been removed to access the pit.
- The guard rails’ removal left an open pit containing a sub-floor shaker pan with molten material and hot-heads; employees used clamps to lift the drag flask.
- Rudisill’s accident occurred when a clamp slipped, causing him to fall into the hot pit; he suffered head and burn injuries and later required multiple surgeries.
- Ford modified the removal process after the incident by adding floor grates to prevent falls when guards are removed.
- Rudisill and his wife sued Ford in state court for an intentional tort under RC 2745.01 and for loss of consortium; Ford removed the case to federal court and summary judgment was granted for Ford.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the presumption under RC 2745.01(C) is appropriately decided by the court or jury | Rudisill contends presumption should go to a jury. | Ford argues presumption may be decided as a matter of law based on undisputed evidence. | Presumption appropriately decided by the court (not a jury). |
| Whether, even without the presumption, there is a triable issue of fact as to Ford's deliberate intent to injure | Rudisill asserts evidence shows Ford's intent to injure or substantial certainty of injury. | Ford contends the evidence shows no deliberate intent; conditions and safety culture negate inference of intent. | No triable issue; Ford did not act with deliberate intent to injure. |
| Whether the district court properly applied the standard for summary judgment | Rudisill argues genuine disputes exist that should go to a jury. | Ford asserts there is no genuine dispute of material fact after considering the presumption and evidence. | Summary judgment proper; no genuine dispute of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 927 N.E.2d 1066 (Ohio 2010) (exclusivity and scope of intentional-tort exception under RC 2745.01; statutory narrowing)
- Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 927 N.E.2d 1092 (Ohio 2010) (confirms sole reliance on specific intent under RC 2745.01)
- Jones v. VIP Dev. Co., 472 N.E.2d 1046 (Ohio 1984) (defines intentional tort as actual intent or belief of substantial certainty)
- Triff v. Nat’l Bronze & Aluminum Foundry Co., 20 N.E.2d 232 (Ohio 1939) (historical articulation of intentional tort exception to workers’ compensation)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard: movant must show no genuine dispute of material fact)