Pixley v. Pro-Pak Industries, Inc. (Slip Opinion)
142 Ohio St. 3d 203
Ohio2014Background
- Plaintiff Phillip Pixley, a Pro-Pak maintenance worker, was seriously injured when a transfer car pinned his leg along a conveyor pathway; the car’s safety bumper did not stop the vehicle during the incident.
- Transfer cars have a safety bumper with a proximity sensor designed to cut power when the bumper collapses; once tripped the system requires manual reset.
- Pixley alleged Pro-Pak deliberately bypassed or disabled the bumper and also failed to train the operator; he sued under R.C. 2745.01 for an employer intentional tort.
- Pro-Pak tested the transfer car after the accident and during an OSHA investigation; employees repeatedly demonstrated the bumper stopped the car when manually compressed.
- Pixley submitted expert affidavits opining the proximity switch had been bypassed based on video showing the bumper dragging without stopping the car; Pro-Pak produced testimony that the bumper can drag some distance and still function and no physical evidence of tampering existed.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Pro-Pak (finding no specific intent to injure); the Sixth District reversed, but the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated summary judgment for Pro-Pak.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the employer "deliberately removed" or bypassed an equipment safety guard under R.C. 2745.01(C) | Pixley: video and expert testimony show the bumper dragged and failed to stop the car, so the proximity switch must have been deliberately bypassed | Pro-Pak: no physical/scientific evidence of tampering; tests showed bumper worked; no evidence any employer decision disabled the guard | Held: No evidence employer deliberately removed/disabled bumper; Pixley failed to prove deliberate intent; summary judgment for Pro-Pak reinstated |
| Whether the statutory rebuttable presumption in R.C. 2745.01(C) applies only to operators of the equipment | Pixley: statute does not limit presumption to operators; protections extend to any employee injured by removal | Pro-Pak: Hewitt’s definition of "equipment safety guard" is limited to protecting operators | Held: Court declined to decide (moot) because plaintiff failed to show deliberate removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 981 N.E.2d 795 (Ohio 2012) (defines "deliberate removal" of equipment safety guard as an affirmative decision to lift, push aside, take off, or otherwise eliminate the guard)
- Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 983 N.E.2d 1253 (Ohio 2012) (explains R.C. 2745.01 limits employer intentional-tort liability and recognizes the statutory rebuttable presumption for deliberate removal)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 671 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment standard and de novo appellate review)