Richard Broyles v. Kasper Machine Co.
517 F. App'x 345
6th Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiff Broyles was a supervisor at IAC and responsible for Bay 26 where the accident occurred.
- Bay 26 housed a P-shaped carpet-forming machine with a rotating carousel and three workstations.
- Safety features included a large manual, fencing with interlocking doors, a light curtain, a SICK eye, warning signs, and a lockout/tag-out procedure.
- Plaintiff, though trained, was not a maintenance employee and had no mechanical/engineering training.
- Plaintiff entered the restricted area to diagnose a misfeed problem, bypassing safety controls, and was injured when the carousel moved while he was atop it.
- Defendants contested the claims across defective design, failure to warn, and workplace intentional tort.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure-to-warn viability | Plaintiff argues warnings were inadequate and could have prevented injury. | Deltamatic contends signs were adequate and Plaintiff ignored them; no proximate cause. | Failure to warn claim failed; warnings were adequate and proximate cause lacking. |
| Defective design proximate cause | Alternative designs could have prevented injury; design defect causally linked. | Even with alternative design, Plaintiff bypassed safety features; proximate cause contested. | Summary judgment upheld; Plaintiff failed to show design caused injury; assumption of risk. |
| Workplace intentional tort | Employer deliberately intended to injure via removal of safeguards? | No deliberate removal or specific intent; training and safeguards existed. | Summary judgment for IAC affirmed; no evidence of deliberate intent to injure. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Fire & Gas Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 523 N.E.2d 489 (Ohio 1988) (foreseeable risk and proximate cause in design claims)
- Mussivand v. David, 544 N.E.2d 265 (Ohio 1989) (proximate cause in design cases and foreseeability)
- Jeffers v. Olexo, 539 N.E.2d 614 (Ohio 1989) (foreseeability and proximate cause considerations)
- Cremeans v. Wilmar Henderson Mfg. Co., 566 N.E.2d 1203 (Ohio 1991) (assessing risk and instruction in design warnings)
- Freas v. Prater Constr. Corp., Inc., 573 N.E.2d 27 (Ohio 1991) (warning adequacy and display concerns)
- Knitz v. Minster Mach. Co., 432 N.E.2d 814 (Ohio 1982) (design alternative feasibility and causation standards)
- Wade II (Wade v. Diamant Boart, Inc.), 179 F. App’x 352 (6th Cir. 2006) (limits of warning-based proximate-cause analysis; employee conduct factors)
- Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 981 N.E.2d 795 (Ohio 2012) (deliberate removal requirement for intentional-tort presumption)